OT-Steel Beasts? Anybody have it?

[Guest Bad Ju Ju]

Although I'm not a sim head, I've heard some good things about Steel Beasts (and also like the fact that Esims is a small company making an ambitious product). It shipped recently. Anyone have it or opinions re the demo?

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

"I didn't go to evil medical school for six years to be called MR. Evil." Dr. Evil

[Airborne]

Got the demo. Interesting. Pretty detailed.

Doubt if I'll buy it, though.. Would probably pick up Panzer Elite if it were available..

Of course, still hooked on CM.....

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

Land Soft--Kill Quiet

[MadDog0606]

I've played the tutorials in the DEMO. Going to start the missions over the weekend. My favorite part of the tutorials was the last one. I was viewing an enemy tank through the thermal sites (as the Tank Commander). My gunner was trying to kill this enemy tank (my gunner was as bad a shot as me). The enemy tank slowly turned its turret toward me and I see this object coming at me getting bigger and bigger and I'm thinking "Who threw the football?". Next thing I know I'm dead.

I did order the game. I should get it next week. I'm a soft touch for war game simulations.

[Mace]

Same here!

I've ordered it and will play it, but CM will always remain my favorite (err..until CM2)!

Mace

[*IX*Angela Deth]

I just received SB today. I have always been heavily into simulations though my primary focus is air combat. I was motivated to check out Steel Beasts thanks to my addiction to Combat Mission and a desire to better understand what it must be like to actually be a tanker.

Although I have not yet spent much time with SB I must say that so far I am very impressed with the work done by eSim on this one.

The sounds in this sim are incredibly immersive and the attention to detail is readily apparent as soon as you crank this puppy up.

Another deciding factor in my purchase decision was the multiplayer support. Steel Beasts allows any combination of human and AI players in scenarios, including two humans in the same tank (one as commmander and a second as gunner). It also has no pre-defined limit on how many players can connect.

I would heartily recommend forking over the $40 Shrapnel Games is asking for SB. Not only do I feel obligated to support the 'little guy' developers but this title is one that definitely should appeal to most anyone who likes Combat Mission.

Just my two cents worth...

Angela Deth

[Los]

I have the full game and it's downright excellent. What is it about one and two man game development companies that keep shaming the big boys? Steel beasts is immersive as hell, sort of like Panzer Elite but for modern actions. The multiplayer is second to none. My friend and I were playing coop over the LAN today, you can be gunner TC which is fun or hop around to differnt tanks on your side. Good stuff. The terrain is detailed enough that you can read the lay of the land and find the sweet spot, the AI driver always finds pretty good hull down poistions and the scenartio editor (including operational graphics) and Map editor are well done. The M1 and the Leopard rock.

Los

[Spook]

Thumbs-up from me too, although I still have only the demo. Not only are you allowed various crewman roles for a tank (gunner/driver/TC), but you can also be a tank platoon leader or even a combined-arms team CO of 2+ platoons. That's where it gets to be as much a wargame as a sim.

The 3D terrain is smoothly rendered and poses plenty of challenges for tankers to find hull-down (or even turret-down) positions.

So for any of you who've played the SB demo's "Instant Action" scenario -- what's your standing record of enemy vehicle kills?

[rdarnese]

<lurk mode off>

I don't want to clog Steve and Charles forums up with our propaganda , but I wanted to let you guys know how much we appreciate the kind comments. Al and his guys have put a lot of love in this game and I think it will do to modern combat what Combat Mission has done to WWII wargaming .

<lurk mode on>

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

Richard Arnesen

Shrapnel Games

www.shrapnelgames.com

[CommanderC]

I played the SB demo and M1A2s were repeatedly destroyed by long range shots to their frontal armor from T-80s and ATGMs. This is totally unrealistic. As shown in the Gulf War, NOTHING can penetrate the frontal armor of an M1A1, not even our own 120 mm gun at point blank range with DU sabot rounds. ATGMs haven't got a prayer of penetrating either.

So I am less than thrilled with SB and all the other modern tank sims which all suffer from the same problem. They should at least have a setting that you could toggle to make the M1A1 armor model realistic. I tried all the settings available in the SB demo, nothing helped.

When are these tank sim producers going to get it through their thick heads that we want an accurate model of modern armored combat, not some kid shoot-em-up game?!!!!

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

"He tasks me!" - Captain Ahab, referring to the great white whale in Moby Dick

[rdarnese]

CommanderC please pop over to our forums to see the discussions on this topic.

The meat and potatoes is that the demo had innacurate armor ratings for the M1A1 that have been fixed in the final version.

And if you think this is a shoot up game, heh, try playing any of the beta testers .

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

Richard Arnesen

Shrapnel Games

www.shrapnelgames.com

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CommanderC:

I As shown in the Gulf War, NOTHING can penetrate the frontal armor of an M1A1, not even our own 120 mm gun at point blank range with DU sabot rounds. ATGMs haven't got a prayer of penetrating either.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The M1A1 was not 'invulnerable'. Yes their were 7 recorded cases where Iraqi 125mm APFSDS rounds failed to penetrate the M1 on the frontal arc.

The 125mm HE/Frag round was the real threat compared to the old exported 3BM15 APFSDS rounds, as I posted in the 88mm thread reapeated HE/Frag hits could open the M1's armor up exposing the inner armor to follow up hits.

M1's were feild modified in the Gulf with xtra add on plates on the glacis etc, & a priority was made to get M1A1HAs to the Gulf. Pretty neat huh .

Regards, John Waters

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

Make way evil, I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster!

[Los]

I think commanderC has his head buried fairly far up his a$$. I have been in plenty of actions on SB(registeerd and demo) where the M1 would be hit many times before getting killed, not that you can't die with one shot. Also it's very easy to get stuff damaged on an M1.

However if you think you are going to just sit there out in the open and trade shots with a T80 (bTW we didn't fight any of those in the gulf) then you get the flaming death you deserve. And ATGMs are dangerous to M1s. You can find a plethora of real M1 and leopard vets on the SB site who will confirm their impressions of Steel Beast as the best tank sim yet. The US ARMY considers a T80, and Russian ATGMs as fired from the BMP/HUIND T80/BRDM to be a dangerous threat to the M1 or at least it was as of the last time I was at NTC one week ago.

This rant is a variation on the typical ill-informed CM rants.

Los

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 09-01-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Los:

However if you think you are going to just sit there out in the open and trade shots with a T80 (bTW we didn't fight any of those in the gulf) then you get the flaming death you deserve. And ATGMs are dangerous to M1s. You can find a plethora of real M1 and leopard vets on the SB site who will confirm their impressions of Steel Beast as the best tank sim yet. The US ARMY considers a T80, and Russian ATGMs as fired from the BMP/HUIND T80/BRDM to be a dangerous threat to the M1 or at least it was as of the last time I was at NTC one week ago.

This rant is a variation on the typical ill-informed CM rants.

Los

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed LOS and the REFLEKS & improved 9M19 used in the T-90 arn't any joke either. I also forgot to add that theirs a big diference in performance in the standard Russian 3BM32 APFSDS-DU, & the 3BM42 APFSDS rounds compared to the 3BM15's the Iraqi's used in the Gulf. To much Clancy is not always a good thing .

Regards, John Waters

-----------

"die verdammte Jabos".

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-01-2000).]

[Spook]

Well, SB has reflected some aspects about the T-72/T-80 that I've certainly noted (realistic or approaching so):

1) There've been MANY times I've taken frontal shots at a T-80 with the T-80 shrugging it off (usually at ranges over 2000m), and sometimes surviving flank shots from me too.

2) Compared to the T-72, the T-80 in SB is a FAST bugger.

SB's lessons are usually taught painfully. Even if you have a hull-down position, having too many WP vehicles (tanks & BMPs) fire at you at the the same time will tell you it's time to look for a new position that limits the incoming fire. Even when your tank survives a hit, it's very frequent that a critical system like the thermal imager, laser rangefinder, or gun stabilization will be knocked out.

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 09-01-2000).]

[TP_Bomber]

I saw somewhere that an Allied Tank was chewed up pretty good by a Iraq ZSU-23. The ZSU was taken out but he had put alot of hits on the Allied tank.

Anyone know anything more about this? I was just curious if it was an M1 that was involved in this.

[CommanderC]

I appreciate the effort that Shrapnel Games has undertaken to make SB a realistic modern tank sim. If the armor model were fixed (and it apparently has been), I think it would be a very interesting game. I hope they will release an updated demo. Sure there were some quirks with the interface, etc. but these would be minor points if the overall round penetration/armor model was done right.

I never have thought that the M1A1, HA or A2 were invulnerable and never said that. They all would certainly be vulnerable to immobilization, and to some damage from rear and top down attacks, and to a lesser extent to side shots. I only said that their frontal armor was inpenetrable by kinetic weapons and ATGMs.

The facts are still trickling out, but from what I understand, in the Gulf War the worst that a M1A1 suffered was immobilization of several from side shots in the Fright Night battle.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think any country has a man portable or ground vehicle-launched top attack ATGM except the US or other NATO countries. The US Javelin and perhaps TOW IIs I think are or can be top attack weapons and are the only ones in existence.

Perhaps SB models a hypothetical Russian top attack ATGM which could knock out an M1A2?

A helicopter or air launched ATGM may be presumed to sometimes engage in a top attack.

[Paul Lakowski]

None of the M-1 hulls are as heavly armored as the front turrets are. This is a growing trend in modern tank design and as a rule all M-1 s can be penetrated by BM-32/42 at short range through the front hull.As to HEAT some are warheads capable of penetrating the hull , it all depends on how much fuel is in the front tanks as these contributes almost half the HEAT protection.

[Guest Pillar]

You guys just wait till Lewis sniffs this thread out.

[19 Echo]

CommaderC:

The Gulf War is practically irrelevant to Steel Beasts. The Iraqis were using export T-72's and firing APFSDS with steel penetrators. Steel Beasts models top of the line Russian equipment firing DU penetrators. As for ATGMS, in the demo the M1A1's armor values were incorrect, but this has been corrected in the full version. I took many frontal hits from ATGMS in Instant Action, which caused some system damage, but it was a Sabot that finally killed me.

To reiterate the first point: the Gulf War teaches nothing about the survivability of the M1A1 vs. top Russian equipment. It also teaches nothing about the survivability of the T-80 and T-90 vs. the M1A1.

Oh, you mentioned the Fright Night battle. I have a book about the 1st AD that goes into detail on that battle. Two M1A1's were knocked out. One was hit at the turret ring, causing extensive damage to the turret floor and lower hull from fragmentation, but the crew all survivied, with some injuries. The other was hit first in the engine, then in the ammo storage, at which point the crew decided they had an elsewhere to be. Both of these tanks might have been repairable.

-- Mike Zeares

[CommanderC]

19 Echo:

Thanks for the reply. Interesting post.

However, the Gulf War is not completely irrelevant to SB. During the war, one of our M1A1s (not sure if it was an HA) became bogged in the sand. After it survived an attack by three Iraqi tanks, US commanders decided to destroy it. So one of our own M1A1s attempted to destroy it by firing DU APFSD rounds at it. After several attempts, it could not be destroyed, finally they went around were able to damage it by a point blank direct rear shot. Even then, the tank was finally recovered and repaired by replacing the turret. Admittedly, this is anecdotal, and I don't know if the shots fired included hits to the hull, but it still serves to illustrate the point that our current modeling of M1A1 armor might be inaccurate, skewed to making it too vulnerable.

I don't think any modern Soviet tank round is superiour to our 120 mm DU sabot rounds.

Hence my frustration with the eagerness of the NTC and modern tank sim designers to give T80s and T90s souped up power in regards to M1A1 armor penetration.

[Paul Lakowski]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CommanderC:

19 Echo:

I don't think any modern Soviet tank round is superiour to our 120 mm DU sabot rounds.

Hence my frustration with the eagerness of the NTC and modern tank sim designers to give T80s and T90s souped up power in regards to M1A1 armor penetration.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The BM32 performance equals that of the M-829 round.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CommanderC:

Thanks for the reply. Interesting post.

However, the Gulf War is not completely irrelevant to SB.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is if were discussing Service Russian AFVs & ammunition that SB models compared to the export T72M1's & 3BM15 APFSDS rounds that Iraq used in the Gulf.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

During the war, one of our M1A1s (not sure if it was an HA) became bogged in the sand. After it survived an attack by three Iraqi tanks, US commanders decided to destroy it. So one of our own M1A1s attempted to destroy it by firing DU APFSD rounds at it. After several attempts, it could not be destroyed, finally they went around were able to damage it by a point blank direct rear shot. Even then, the tank was finally recovered and repaired by replacing the turret. Admittedly, this is anecdotal, and I don't know if the shots fired included hits to the hull, but it still serves to illustrate the point that our current modeling of M1A1 armor might be inaccurate, skewed to making it too vulnerable.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes that M1 took a hammering . No ones disputing the M1A1's KE protection, just trying to get you to understand that the M1A1 was not invulnerable on the frontal arc, & that the M1A1 didn't have anything to realy worry about on the frontal arc from an 3BM15 APFSDS round. Their were 7 reported incidents where M1A1's were hit frontaly by 125mm APFSDS rounds (an example how poor Iraqi gunnery was that their were only 7 hits) with no damage. And to let you know that their is HEAT ammuniton that can theoreticly defeat the M1A1's front hull armor as Paul pointed out.

Out of 1,956 M1's deployed in the Gulf 8 suffered damage with 4 being disabled & 4 damaged Of the 4 hit during Easting, speculation still continues on what caused the damage to the 4 M1A1's, the 3 main believed causes are:

1. 125mm rounds

2. ATGM

3. Friendly fire.

The Ballistic report indicates that 125mm HEAT rounds caused most of the damage as well as 1 clear SABOT penetration. The main cause in the report due to physical evidence of the loss of the 4 M1A1 at Easting was from 125mm fire but the emphisis was more towards implying friendly fire(Apache Hellfire missles) were the cause. Of course this may have changed as my data is from 95.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I don't think any modern Soviet tank round is superiour to our 120 mm DU sabot rounds.

Hence my frustration with the eagerness of the NTC and modern tank sim designers to give T80s and T90s souped up power in regards to M1A1 armor penetration.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Souped up compared to what?. The 3BM32 APFSDS-DU is equivelent in performance to the M829A1. What gave you the impression that the Russian's couldn't make an 125mm round with similiar or equivelent performance to the M829 series?.

How are you going to react when you run into a T-72BM or T-80UM with KONTAKT-5 or a T-90 with KAKTUS ERA and watch M829 rounds fail repeatedly?, will you site the T-72M1 destructions in the Gulf, or the M829 round that passed thru 2 berms to kill an T-72, or the case where 1 M829 round killed 2 T-72s etc.

Regards, John Waters

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

"die verdammte Jabos".

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-02-2000).]

[19 Echo]

As for that battered M1A1, I read that story in Clancy's "Armored Cav" (source of much 'Super M1' propoganda). I no longer have the book, but I thought he wrote that HEAT rounds were used, none of which could penetrate the turret (the tank was stuck so deep that it was essentially hull down). They finally penetrated the rear turret, which only blew off the panels. After a while another (or a couple, I don't remember) M88 recovery vehicle showed up and they were able to tow the tank out after all. Note that using HEAT makes sense, if you want the thing to blow up and burn. Note also that the proper way to destroy a tank is with thermite grenades, which makes me wonder about this story. I suppose it's possible that nobody had thermites. Or that they decided shooting it would be more fun.

-- Mike Zeares

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi guys,

No offense to anybody here, but I am going to close this one up. We don't mind a plug or two for another well made wargame (especially by a small team ), but a full blown discussion about non-WWII stuff isn't what this BBS is here for. So "click" goes the padlock on this thread

Steve

[kipanderson]

Hi,

this has turned into a fun thread.

I go with those like Los, John and Paul who point out that the T80U is no easy kill. SB covers 1993-1997 in it current version, the T80U was introduced in 1985 but Jane's Defence Weekly reported about a year ago that the US had tested one against the latest M829A2 DU round and still found it to be immune over the frontal arc. They do not mean totally immune just that it was more likely to survive than not.As John points out the Russians now have the improved KAKTUS ERA that is one up on that the US tested the M829A2 against. The KAKTUS ERA can also withstand tandem ATGM, it does this by using tandem ERA. To deal with top attack ATGM like some TOWs,Spike and Javelin there is the Arena hard kill active defence system that destroys them before they strike the tank. It has been demonstrated to the Germans and others and works as claimed. Of course it would not destroy 100% of incoming missiles but a large number would be brought down.

When you get same generation Russian tanks against NATO tanks its a fairly even contest.

The only computer games I play at the moment is are CM( and Brigade Combat Team now and then). I have ordered SB because I feel realism is also the niche they are after.

All the best,

Kip.