equal damage or effect from damage on east and west tanks

[nkenny 1051]

You disappoint me Ollie1983. You ignore the obvious problem. The paper thin armour of Russian vehicles would crumble the very moment it started to rain-- not to mention upon trying to cross any river!

And please. The myths of T34s clever construction principles, soviet expertise at combine armored-infantry operations, and the numbers deployed* reek of soviet fanboi'ism of the worst RUSSIA STRONG variety. I mean you are ignoring the obvious. Soviet Union was not the US. The PTA standard proves this in every way.

-k

*I went to an museum once where they had a surviving T34 on display. Yeah. you got that. ONE t34. There weren't hundreds of them. pretty much renders the numbers argument moot yeah. Sorry anecdotal at best cuz I didn't think to youtube it, but you'll have to take my word for it.

[Ollie1983 10]

You aren't funny. If you feel unable to comment on the subject at hand, I'd generally recommend not posting at all. Personal attacks and other useless vitriol, are best posted via PM so people don't have to read it or have perfectly good threads spoilt by children.

[BasileyOne 10]

Soviets[not "Russians", thats important difference]had significant dominance BOTH in quantity AND quality of their tanks before new arms limiting treaties was signed.

now things was not so different.

just politicians and military on both sides become more corrupt and dangerous.

[dm 9]

threads spoilt by children.

You mean like you and your fanboi comments?

[Bob of Mage 10]

I was just wondering what kind of T-72 is in game? I would think that it would have to be etheir a late or post-USSR type. Shouldn't the model also vary by faction? I would think that the Russians would have the lastest model while the CDF would some older types. The fact that as far as I know there is only a "T-72" in game is some what vexing.

Also as far as I know the USMC has no M1A2s, so why do they use them in game?

[king homer 1]

I was just wondering what kind of T-72 is in game? I would think that it would have to be etheir a late or post-USSR type. Shouldn't the model also vary by faction? I would think that the Russians would have the lastest model while the CDF would some older types. The fact that as far as I know there is only a "T-72" in game is some what vexing.

Also as far as I know the USMC has no M1A2s, so why do they use them in game?

A mix of T-72A / M and T-72 probably.

[Bob of Mage 10]

Is that for the CDF? By the way why would a fromer member of the USSR be using export models (T-72 M)?

I would think that the Russians would be using one of the later T-72B models. Do they even use the T-72 in game? I ask this because while I have Arma 2 I need a working computer to play it.:(

[Beagle 684]

Is that for the CDF? By the way why would a fromer member of the USSR be using export models (T-72 M)?

I would think that the Russians would be using one of the later T-72B models. Do they even use the T-72 in game? I ask this because while I have Arma 2 I need a working computer to play it.:(

Russian T-72 is the same as Takitani or CDF or NAPA or Chedaki T-72. There is only one T-72 in game and that resembles a pretty old one in original configuration close to what was used in the early 80's The T-90 in game is the same...old model reflecting early model of T-90 also labeled T-72 BU Recent model would be a T-90M...thats 5 steps and 15 Years in development and upgrades since T-72BU.

In fact the T-90 we have in game is more in line with a late T-72BU but far from a true modern T-90M.

[Bob of Mage 10]

In fact the T-90 we have in game is more in line with a late T-72BU but far from a true modern T-90M.

If Wikipedia is to be believed the T-90M is not in production yet. Since Arma II is set in 2009 the model ingame would have to be the T-90A.

Also, again from Wikipedia, the Georgian being a good baseline to follow for the CDF uses both T-72As and T-72Bs.

It really starts to make Arma II feel "gamey" when there are such glaring issues with some of the AFVs (the USMC using M1A2s being another example).

[maturin 12]

The Armaverse is a few years ahead of us. The F-35 was far from operational in 2009.

It's only the Russian Tanks are out of date, perhaps because their are just refurbished ArmA models.

[Beagle 684]

If Wikipedia is to be believed the T-90M is not in production yet. Since Arma II is set in 2009 the model ingame would have to be the T-90A.

Also, again from Wikipedia, the Georgian being a good baseline to follow for the CDF uses both T-72As and T-72Bs.

It really starts to make Arma II feel "gamey" when there are such glaring issues with some of the AFVs (the USMC using M1A2s being another example).

Russian sites state T-90M is production model. Wikipedia lags often years behind. Russia spends a lot of cash into modernization right now. Russia today is not the same country that was in deep financial struggle in the 90's. The Ka-52 on the other hand should be a really rare aircraft...but it is not in game...and it shuold be always accompanied by a few Ka-50s.

ArmA II is pretty far from any reality...but it is stil o.. for a 30€ Sandbox Game. If you want more you have to get hands in VBS2.

If ArmA was überaccurate...what sense would a 1000$ License

for VBS2 make?

[noubernou 77]

ArmA II is pretty far from any reality...but it is stil o.. for a 30€ Sandbox Game. If you want more you have to get hands in VBS2.

If ArmA was überaccurate...what sense would a 1000$ License

for VBS2 make?

ArmA2 + ACE is far more realistic than VBS2 and I am speaking as a developer working on both platforms.

ArmA and VBS2 are about the same minus some additional instructional features.

[Beagle 684]

ArmA2 + ACE is far more realistic than VBS2 and I am speaking as a developer working on both platforms.

ArmA and VBS2 are about the same minus some additional instructional features.

We are not discussing ACE features here, this is about BLUFOR vs. OPFOR Tank simulation (or better emulation) in standard unmodded ArmA II OA+

ACE features can be discussed in ACE Thread this is Suggestion subforum for standard game as most players use it.

We do suggest BIS to fix this, not a modmaker or a group of modmakers.

[noubernou 77]

We are not discussing ACE features here, this is about BLUFOR vs. OPFOR Tank simulation (or better emulation) in standard unmodded ArmA II OA+

ACE features can be discussed in ACE Thread this is Suggestion subforum for standard game as most players use it.

We do suggest BIS to fix this, not a modmaker or a group of modmakers.

All I was saying is that your statement about VBS2 is incorrect. It is no more accurate than stock ArmA or ArmA2 in a majority of its features.

[Ollie1983 10]

You're getting a bit worked up over nothing, really. I shoot T-72, it is killed, job done. Next target, please.

F35 will be a beast of an aircraft when fully operational and deployed, I love flying it, absolute joy to fly.

[max power 21]

I believe that the people who drive T-72s in ArmA would appreciate it if a hit to the tracks didn't blow up their vehicle. And I'm not sure what you mean by worked up. The only person that's resorting to personal attacks is you.

[Ollie1983 10]

Oh well, that is tough.

On a slightly different note, I seem to remember the Canadians have a mobile anti aircraft SAM launcher that also doubles as an anti tank system, does anyone know the name of it and its abilities??

[jagheterjan 10]

ADATS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Anti-Tank_System

[JAG201509 10]

have you ever thought that the M1A1 is more advanced than any other tank in the game.. and have you tried useing different ammo. A SABOT round from a T-90 will destroy a M1A1. and you still want to complain,dont use tanks,its that easy.

[Ollie1983 10]

ADATS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Anti-Tank_System

Thanks, very interesting. Quite an interesting vehicle, and very effective by the looks of it, or potentially so.