Jump to content

Lieste

Members
  • Posts

    740
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lieste

  1. There is a fundamental difference between Beacon on Missile and Tracker on Missile systems of SACLOS missile. In the former (TOW et al) the sight sees the target and missile and generates steering commands according to apparent error - and thus a false signal can be injected into the sight picture potentially causing a miss. In the latter case (Most Soviet ATGM and some SAM) the firing platform generates the signal and the missile steers along the commanded LOS (which can also be offset from the firer-target LOS during the bulk of the flight if desired). You do have an emitter at the firing location which could make the platform more vulnerable to suppression or possibly increase hard kill APS success rates by cueing the sensor... but it is really hard to directly deception jam as the jammer would have to behind the missile to be effective.
  2. Older versions did run on Intel based iMac using bootcamp. No idea how well, or whether that is still feasible with 4.0 - there is a thread on it from 2006 when it was 2.483
  3. Oh yes, you do get arrows and knees... and horse armour.
  4. 64 bit OS, lots of (8-16GB)? RAM, 2GB+ DX11 GPU of a reasonably recent generation and not 'entry level', and a reasonably fast quad core ~3GHz +. This is based on the current SB Pro specification, and is somewhat above the minimums given in most respects. There isn't a published spec for Pro PE 4.0 yet, there have been some comments on the main forum... http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/10355-sb-pro-pe-40-discussion-thread/?page=7#comment-150690 Much will also depend on the resolution you intend to use, the detail draw distances and your tolerance for frame rates... you will need a lot more to push high detail 4k 60fps than 'medium' 1080p 30fps, and for me the game play was always 'ok' above 20ish when my hardware was sub-par. For Multi Player, you will need a robust internet connection with a reasonable up stream, especially if hosting. For offline/LAN this isn't important of course. Larger scenarios will have higher requirements for HW than smaller ones, so you can tune performance in this way as well.
  5. At the moment discounted 3.0 is $85, and upgrades have been running at around $40 every 18-24 months. This is Codemeter stick, permanent license. This is likely to be "close" to the price for 4.0, but I've not seen a definite price stated yet, so should be considered a WAG based on past experience. You can also consider a time limited, machine specific license. Currently around $39.50 for a year - this is always valid for the latest version but needs to be renewed (intermittently if you want) in order to use the software (Also codemeter, just a software version iirc). I prefer KB Mouse and Stick. With Stick for gunnery - a very old Sidewinder 2.0 (red). Controllers are nicer but very (too?) vehicle specific and hugely expensive if you can even acquire them.
  6. Not much in the map editor *yet* according to comments by Nils. Much planned for later - this being a 'ground work' release. However, the compromises to accommodate the buildings, slopes and roads in dense terrain are certainly likely to be eased by the new smoothing shown in one of the earlier videos on Esim's YT channel.
  7. Lieste

    Muzzle Brakes

    Muzzle brakes cause more blast - increasing localised overpressure and dust kicked up by firing among other things. With the older style brakes the use of sabots is liable to cause inaccuracy or muzzle damage. It is however possible to redesign the brake (including oversized bore in the brake, or a pepper-pot design) so that the sabots don't interfere with the brake.
  8. It had a complex engine design that had heating problems with the synthetic oil available. (The 1600 rpm was made up of 800rpm from the prop going one way and 800rpm of the crankcase going the other (thus significantly reducing cooling of the cylinders)). Torque was still full, because the thrust was only generated by a single 4 bladed prop. However the gyroscopic effect was less than that of a stationary engine (prop and crankcase had nearly identical MOI and thus gyroscopic effects for rotary engines. Normally they operate in the same direction, but when opposed they gave a neutral gyro coupling. By the time the worst of the engine problems were reduced to manageable levels the war was nearly over. It saw limited action as a home defence interceptor, rather than a frontline patrol aircraft, limiting it's immediate recognition too.
  9. Didn't really like Team Yankee. I found First Clash, Red Army and Chieftains to be more fun.
  10. A plugging failure of the plate. Maybe... but usually high strain is required, which may or may not be adiabatic failure. The commonly used example of adiabatic shear is a mechanism which self sharpens the nose of eroding projectiles instead of a blunt mushrooming tip. Plugging with strain based and adiabatic failure modes: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a139131.pdf
  11. From the "Gamma" presentation it is clear that 1000yds 150mm 60 deg was considered "outside" the performance envelope of ADPS. The lower values suggest a 'proof' that this no longer applies to the L11/L15 combination, and the higher value may represent 'searching' for the limit value. It seems as if the 1000yds penetration increment is around -10mm @60 from the graph you include in your post, so a 5mm variation in supposed 'limit penetration' is all that is under consideration in any case. Given that the penetration of 150mm is "clean", it seems reasonable that 5mm more is possible, but YMMV, and there may be alternative explanations. It seems to me as if they don't all describe 'limit performances' though, and most discuss the defeat of an "impossible" target at some useful range.
  12. BM9 is only steel, the other one is steel with tungsten sub-penetrator.... still the 245mm at normal impact seems abnormally low for a 185 at 45 value. While 345mm would be right in line with being 'not quite' BM15 levels, and the oblique performance of itself...
  13. Is that 245 supposed to be 245? Looks like a 345 would fit the other values better??
  14. Relevant: http://www.ima.org.uk/_db/_documents/Tilley.pdf
  15. I read in Dupuy that the Meggido campaign of 1918 was one of the fastest operational advances in history, at iirc some 80km per day. I really need to dig out my official history of that campaign again and work from their maps and a terrain model, now that GIS data is available of decent quality.
  16. You know the saying. "The Early Bird gets the Worm"? The second mouse gets the cheese.
  17. Fitted for, but not with Electricity.
  18. The speed of sound varies according to air density so I'm not sure that he would have been supersonic in the air which he was traveling through though. Nope, he was supersonic at high altitude, then decelerated as he descended further. Max velocity was estimated at Mach 1.24 at 30km (very ish, eyeballing from a small graph), then rapidly reducing (partly due to increasing density and temperature*, partly to due to the transition from streamlined to 'flat plate' to dump the 50MJ of potential energy before reaching the parachute opening altitude of 2.5km at a safe velocity). *Velocity reduces due to increasing air resistance at higher density, mach number further reduces due to changes in the speed of sound with temperature and pressure.
  19. Tallboy and Grandslam tended to breakup on concrete (they did much better when they narrowly missed and went off high-order in the soil). By the calculations of the tests performed at Farge, the Tallboy was just supersonic when dropped from high altitude, but hitting heavily reinforced concrete didn't guarantee a perforation and high order detonation inside. It could scab off some material if it remained intact enough to detonate, but it could also break up 'harmlessly'. The fabricated copies of Tallboy and Grandslam held together better than the RAF cast bombs, but still were inadequate for reliable precision bombing of concrete targets. Only the Disney bomb and the SAP Amazon had semi-reliable penetration, because they were designed to strike directly, while Tallboy and Grandslam were designed to primarily destroy from near-misses.
  20. I gathered that the PzFaust (at least in the shorter range variants) was tolerably safe to operate in normal rooms, so long as the tube was pointing into the room (rather than at a side wall). Not as safe as PIAT which was a spigot projector, but nowhere near as dangerous to use in confined spaces as Bazooka or Panzershrek.
  21. I've read that Objekt 219A/T80U was the Alder/Olkha. Not anything to do with Obj 184/T72B afaik
  22. While 518m/s does seem to be a casualty of "all other things being equal". It is quite untrue that all free fall bombs are limited to subsonic velocity. A quick perusal of the US document I included earlier will show the 1000lb and larger SAP and AP bombs reaching supersonic velocities when dropped from 35,000ft, with the highest recorded velocity being just under Mach 1.1 What is required is a large, streamlined, heavy cased bomb... Tallboy was designed to reach similar velocity (Mach 1.08) from 18,000ft - Grandslam is given a lower impact velocity (Mach0.94) from an unspecified height, but one that I suspect is significantly lower.
  23. WW2 US publication with data for bombing, tank and artillery ammunition across 3 vols. (Terminal Ballistic Data) Vol 1 and 3 have the bombing data: http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll8/id/2342/rec/7 http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p4013coll8/id/2375/rec/14 Vol 2 and 3 Artillery http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll8/id/2327/rec/5
  24. There are no ships with meaningful armour protection. Some variant of PELE or HE would be sufficient to deal with most current targets suitable for a gun engagement. While long rods may be more expensive than APCBC, they are an order of magnitude cheaper than missiles. (TOW unit cost somewhere in the region of $50,000) M829A3 (which is at the upper end of effectiveness and engineering) has a unit cost of around $8,500. APILAS MAW has a unit price of around $2,200, M72 LAW around $900 ~ but effectiveness and range are much lower for small RPG than for main gun rounds.
×
×
  • Create New...