db_zero Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 So easy even a caveman can do it...or so it seems. M1 tank on the prowl. Enemy vehicle appears, Abhrams shoots vehicle blows up. While it looks so easy in CM, it seems like there is a lot more to it. I just updated Steel Beasts PE to the latest version and started playing around with the M1A2 and there is quite a bit to getting good at hitting your target.I didn't think it would be so easy to burn out the laser and resorting to the manual back up is a huge challange. Ill have to try the Russian stuff out later. I kinda like the sight reticule on the Challanger a little more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 Is it an M1A2 Sep V2? Also the US Army and military in general does more or less constantly train it's combat troops, and constantly strives to improve training and have large unit excercises at 29 Palms. Add to that a significant portion of the current US military today has combat experience. Of course BS is in 2017, but that'd still equate to large numbers of officers and senior NCOs with combat experience, and improved lessons learned and training from it. Even if it is a different type of combat than fighting Russia.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mhiester Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 If you want to try difficult gunnery, take the Australian Leopard 1 for a spin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 M1A2 gunnery is easier once you've spent a few hours in the MAGTS and are doing it with humans in the other crew positions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdwing Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 If you want to try difficult gunnery, take the Australian Leopard 1 for a spin. Or the BRDM-2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted April 11, 2015 Author Share Posted April 11, 2015 Is it an M1A2 Sep V2? Also the US Army and military in general does more or less constantly train it's combat troops, and constantly strives to improve training and have large unit excercises at 29 Palms. Add to that a significant portion of the current US military today has combat experience. Of course BS is in 2017, but that'd still equate to large numbers of officers and senior NCOs with combat experience, and improved lessons learned and training from it. Even if it is a different type of combat than fighting Russia.. No looks like just a M1A2. No question the Army trains hard. The point of my post was its still takes skill and a level of intelligence to master the systems. Doing it under the threat of death when the fear factor is present isn't easy. I guess if you practice enough muscle memory takes over and it becomes natural like riding a bike. I assume the Australian Leopard I is the same as the Leopard I in SB. As for the BRDM-2...I hope it doesn't have the Sagger ATGMs like the original version. Even if it has newer ATGM's it strikes me as a coffin on wheels. The Bradley seems like a fun vechicle. The 25mm Bushmaster is a joy to shoot. I still have to learn how to use the TOW. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IICptMillerII Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Whats your point? If you are trying to claim that Abrams should not be as good at gunnery based on your own experience in Steel Beasts, then that is pretty weak. As has already been mentioned, tankers train a lot, in real tanks, with other real humans, and constantly strive to better their gunnery. We have historical examples of green crews (crews with no combat experience but trained on their tanks) engaging the enemy and destroying them utterly. The First Gulf War, battle of 73 Eastings and other engagements. Yes the Iraqi penetrator was inferior blah blah blah. That isn't the point. American crews did not treat the Iraqi's as pushovers. In fact quite the opposite. The US was very worried about the Iraqi army, and feared taking over 30,000 casualties. So despite lack of combat experience, it has been proven that well trained crews can not only perform (like they are supposed to) but excel (which we have seen them do) I again have to ask what is your point? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted April 11, 2015 Author Share Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) Whats your point? If you are trying to claim that Abrams should not be as good at gunnery based on your own experience in Steel Beasts, then that is pretty weak. As has already been mentioned, tankers train a lot, in real tanks, with other real humans, and constantly strive to better their gunnery. We have historical examples of green crews (crews with no combat experience but trained on their tanks) engaging the enemy and destroying them utterly. The First Gulf War, battle of 73 Eastings and other engagements. Yes the Iraqi penetrator was inferior blah blah blah. That isn't the point. American crews did not treat the Iraqi's as pushovers. In fact quite the opposite. The US was very worried about the Iraqi army, and feared taking over 30,000 casualties. So despite lack of combat experience, it has been proven that well trained crews can not only perform (like they are supposed to) but excel (which we have seen them do) I again have to ask what is your point? You're correct...there really is no point in what I posted. I was just rambling on. I was in no way implying the M1 should not be as good at gunnery as it is. I was just trying to say that it takes alot of skill to be that good even with the latest wiz bang gadgetry. Edited April 11, 2015 by db_zero 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IICptMillerII Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Ahh ok I understand now. I thought that this could have been some kind of lead-in to a "oMg pLz nerf ABRams its tOO OP" thread. By the way I've been looking into getting Steel Beasts for a while now. I've seen some really good youtube videos of gameplay, some made by Krause who is semi-active on these forums, and I've really liked what I've seen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted April 11, 2015 Author Share Posted April 11, 2015 Ahh ok I understand now. I thought that this could have been some kind of lead-in to a "oMg pLz nerf ABRams its tOO OP" thread. By the way I've been looking into getting Steel Beasts for a while now. I've seen some really good youtube videos of gameplay, some made by Krause who is semi-active on these forums, and I've really liked what I've seen. I always thought all the gunner in a M1 had to do was put the reticule on the target, push a button and the wiz bang computers and gadgetry would do the rest, but there seems to be more to it and I think the US military is so well trained and skilled, they've been making it look easier than it really is-although if we ever did get into a shooting match with the Russian it would not be pleasant and I don't see it being a turket shoot like it been in the desert. Stell Beasts is a good complimentary sim for Black Sea. Definately a different perspective. I find myself dying and getting shot up alot even in the uber tanks like the M1A2-so I pretty much suck at it so far, but it is entertaining. I'm still learning it and unlike Black Sea where you're commanying platoons/companies/BN's you're command smaller sections. It is pricey $125 and you'll probably want a joystick and decent system to run it. I"ve started trying out the T-72, but for some reason in the tutorials the gun won't fire so i don't know if thats a bug or WAD. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IICptMillerII Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 I think the perspective it provides is one of the coolest parts of Steel Beasts. Commanding a tank or IFV while at the same time being able to command larger units in a large scale battle. One of the scenarios that I have seen videos made about is the "Red Tide 85" campaign that was done a while back. It was a classic NATO v Warsaw Pact engagement in Western Germany, and it looked somewhat comparable to Combat Mission, the main difference being the perspective. As for the price I know its up there, but I know that you can buy time limited licenses for a month or a few months for a greatly reduced price. That may end up being the way I do it, so I can experience it without having to make the full commitment. I do think you make a good point, that experiencing these kinds of battles from a tankers perspective is much different than the one we get from the commander perspective in Combat Mission. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted April 14, 2015 Author Share Posted April 14, 2015 If you can afford it I would just go and and buy it. I bought it years ago and really didn't get into it, but now that Black Sea and interested me and I've played and started learning Steel Beasts more I've really grown to appreciate it. Easy to see why its considered the best tank sim out there. Lots of missions you can download. Only thing missing is campaigns. I would love to see WW2 tanks made. That would be the ultimate. The last WW2 tank sime I played alot what the old Panzer Elite. I got T-34 vs Tiger, but never played it as well as Steel Fury which I played a little, but not sure eiter will run under Windows 7 without a lot of tweaking. Steel Beasts has multiplayer games on Friday night, but I'm not good enought to get into that at this point. I still don't really don't know all the things I need to know well enough yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.