Merkava... IDF??

[aart112 12]

simple fact is we dont know. those screenshots arent proof that the US will use those f2000's maybe those happend to be the first guns they finished or wanted to show ? same goes for the vehicles and other units.

also i'm not sure why BIS went with the comanche. its old canceled and it wasnt supossed to replace the apache in the real world. its a stealth recon chopper ment to replace the kiowa warrior. so even if in the BIS universe the project didnt get canceled its still not a primairy gunship/tankhunter. id much rather see them design a followup for the apache. or perhaps some kind of cobra/apache hybrid. only reason they brought in the comanche is becouse they know people think its futuristic and it 'looks cool' wich troubles me about the intent of BIS with their new designs

[Steakslim 1]

Kinda makes me hope the Apache is still around in vanilla A3 for the sake of using it and the comanche together in a similar way the AH-6X was used in Arrowhead, only a bit more effectively i suppose.

[soul_assassin 1750]

Railguns? Stealth choppers? Tanks that shoot down missiles? It's crazy technology but it's no fiction.

Not even that crazy. Anti missile tech has been used on soviet tech since 78 (Drozd). Stealth choppers are also in operational military use as we've seen with the latest US stunt in Pakistan. From what I can find on Wikipedia, railguns have been tested by the military since 85. Operational models were built and fired, also in the US:

VWS1dBrAAJU

So not only is it not science fiction, its barely even fiction.

[BlackAlpha 10]

Not even that crazy. Anti missile tech has been used on soviet tech since 78 (Drozd). Stealth choppers are also in operational military use as we've seen with the latest US stunt in Pakistan. From what I can find on Wikipedia, railguns have been tested by the military since 85. Operational models were built and fired, also in the US:

So not only is it not science fiction, its barely even fiction.

By saying it's barely fiction, you imply it is fiction and therefore science fiction. Wrong choice of words, I guess. Anyway, it's pretty safe to say that it's no fiction, it's fact.

What I'm wondering is whether there is some sort of fictitious technology involved in ArmA 3. Maybe something we haven't seen yet but have heard about? Then we could still call it science fiction.

[Daniel 0]

Indeed, for it to be science fiction it would require a major advancement of technology beyond science's current capabilities. So then you're entering the realms of directed energy weapons, anti-matter weapons, miniaturization of railgun and high energy laser weapons, etc. I don't think we'll see any of that in Arma 3. Every single item so far, be it fictional or otherwise, uses conventional technology. The Astute class, the Commanche, the Mi-48: all technology derived from the 20th century. The only thing approaching science fiction, in my opinion, are the weird eye things on the Iranian soldiers. I'd like to hear more about those.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Just curious about the other vehicles and stuff!

Will we see something like the Leopard 3, soldiers using exoskeletons or micro/man-portable UAVs?

[soul_assassin 1750]

By saying it's barely fiction, you imply it is fiction and therefore science fiction. Wrong choice of words, I guess.

??

If i wanted to imply science fiction i would have said science fiction. It is fiction because there is no tank in operation which has a coil gun. Its not science fiction because there is nothing stopping anyone from making one right now (or 10 years ago for that matter), except maybe douche bag politicians who wont cough up the cash.

[Maio 293]

Just curious about the other vehicles and stuff!

Will we see something like the Leopard 3, soldiers using exoskeletons or micro/man-portable UAVs?

The devs did say they were thinking of micro UAV's ;)

[LANCERZz 10]

Science Fiction

Personally I like to look at it as an parallel universe sort of game. Events are very close to what happens in our dimension, but with small changes here and there that can lead to glaring differences.

Right, because in 2007 we were fighting on Sahrani and in 2009 we defeated the chernerussians in real life, right?

[max power 21]

So I write a story about some time 5 years in the future when I modify my Volkswagen Golf to have an experimental Wankel engine, or a Ballard fuel cell, or hydrogen power. This is scifi?

[Daniel 0]

So I write a story about some time 5 years in the future when I modify my Volkswagen Golf to have an experimental Wankel engine, or a Ballard fuel cell, or hydrogen power. This is scifi?

That depends entirely on what happens when your VW reaches 88 mph.

[onlyrazor 11]

That depends entirely on what happens when your VW reaches 88 mph.

I once tried that and some serious shit happened.

No, seriously. I overtook a Ferrari, and the driver thought his car broke down so he stepped out. And then I crashed into the wall

[-=2RTR=- Somnus 0]

I truly hope that the Merkava will not be used as the NATO, or Western powers standard wagon (Tank)... Never gonna happen... Leopard 2A6? Yes... Merkava? Not a chance.

It proved it was a poor tank when it got knocked out consistently in Lebanon, recently.

Challenger 2. Best tank in the world, but too expensive and the crew needs to be trained to the highest standards. IE, Professional Soldiers.

Leopard 2 series. Brilliant tank, not combat proven and can be utilized by conscripts. Thus most Euro countries have purchased or are looking to purchase this wagon. Canada although non-euro also purchased the Leo.

It's petty but please don't included the Merkava into the Western arsenal. It's not realistic. Too heavy, too expensive to maintain with the revolver semi-autoloader, and it's not used nore will be used by NATO or the West.

Other then that, the sim is looking very promising... I also like that the main character isn't a Yank. Thank you... Nobody wants to be a yank... We all want the American dream, but none of us want to actually be a Yank...

Hoofin!

---------- Post added at 11:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 AM ----------

Also...

"black eagle" was in development for North Korea... Might be an idea...

Rumor was that it used a semi-auto main armament... and they (Russians) were contemplating using a 145mm main gun...

can't really get into anything more then that...

---------- Post added at 12:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 AM ----------

also other then "modernization" packages, you won't see any major changes in our tech for the next 50 odd years... as we sit in limbo...

Chally 2 will not be the Chally 3, Leopard 2 will not move on to the Leopard 3, etc... Tanks are too expensive and now that we have over specialized in this "counter-insurgency" way of warfighting... Gone are the days of "rolling thunder"... For now... BUT... A great armour man once said...

"Whenever in future wars the battle is fought, armored troops will play the decisive role."

Heinz Guderian

He has another quote that I can't find right now, but it roughly says something along the lines of,

-we cannot de-invent a weapon system once invented- Thus tanks no mater how hard your average soccer mom pushes the politicians the bin, will always be used in war... Maybe only at first by the enemy against us, but eventually by us as well...

If any of you get a chance, try reading Guderian's "Achtung Panzer". Brilliant insight into the beginnings of Tank Warfare and the utilization of Tanks as an only offensive weapon system.

Well sorry about that... That's enough from this white noised call sign! OUT!

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

"It proved it was a poor tank when it got knocked out consistently in Lebanon, recently. "

In my opinion it wasn't the tank that proved poor. It was the Generals that sent tanks into a 3-D terrain for hostage rescue. They essentially repeated what happened to Israeli tanks in those same valleys before. It was either monstrously retarded or so ingenious that I'm still unable to figure out what was gained with that strategy.

[Rebel44 10]

"It proved it was a poor tank when it got knocked out consistently in Lebanon, recently. "

In my opinion it wasn't the tank that proved poor. It was the Generals that sent tanks into a 3-D terrain for hostage rescue. They essentially repeated what happened to Israeli tanks in those same valleys before. It was either monstrously retarded or so ingenious that I'm still unable to figure out what was gained with that strategy.

Also I doubt that Leopard 2 or Challenger 2 or Abrams would have better results (compared to Merkava 4s) in such enviroment (almost all total tank losses were due to massive IEDs which can kill any tank).

[nodunit 397]

Close quarters..the nightmare of every MBT crew.

Edited June 18, 2011 by NodUnit

[AstroMan 10]

"now that we have over specialized in this "counter-insurgency" way of warfighting."

But you gotta remember that this is world war 3.

And the fighting must of gone on for a while considering that NATO is getting its arse handed to itself, which means heaps of changes would be made to armaments just like ww2.

But I do agree with you that it should not be NATO's MBT.

[nuklon 10]

I'm very amazed that's developers added merkava 4 tank to the game, Its very brilliant and cool idea to add this space tank in to the game. :) Well make good games and don't care about politics! Wish u the success and all the best to game dev-team.)

[instagoat 133]

Having the Merkava as MBT makes no sense, but I don´t mind that.

What I mind is that BOTH sides use the exact same model of Merkava, moreover the fact that the Iranians (!) are exclusively using israeli equipment. Tavor Rifle, Namer APC and the Merkava. Minus the Caiman.

The Iranians are even developing their own assault rifle right now, as well as their own MBT designs. Plus, there is advanced MBTs in development with nations friendly to Iran, which would make more sense than using Namer and Merkava. BI, for the sake of coherence, I hope you have a good explanation for this.

Otherwise I´d really have to attest A3 a serious case of MW2 disease.

(Which, in essence, is no problem as I´ve said before. It´d just be cool if you wouldn´t just do things because they´re cool, but also provide a sound explanation as to WHY things are being used by the opposing forces.)

[roberthammer 582]

Having the Merkava as MBT makes no sense, but I don´t mind that.

What I mind is that BOTH sides use the exact same model of Merkava, moreover the fact that the Iranians (!) are exclusively using israeli equipment. Tavor Rifle, Namer APC and the Merkava. Minus the Caiman.

The Iranians are even developing their own assault rifle right now, as well as their own MBT designs. Plus, there is advanced MBTs in development with nations friendly to Iran, which would make more sense than using Namer and Merkava. BI, for the sake of coherence, I hope you have a good explanation for this.

Otherwise I´d really have to attest A3 a serious case of MW2 disease.

(Which, in essence, is no problem as I´ve said before. It´d just be cool if you wouldn´t just do things because they´re cool, but also provide a sound explanation as to WHY things are being used by the opposing forces.)

I think BIS added that IDF stuff to Iran army , because it is cool modern looking and more advanced than usual

[Perforator 10]

I think BIS added that IDF stuff to Iran army , because it is cool modern looking and more advanced than usual

Yes Israel and Iran are expected to sign the deal next week.

[max power 21]

What I mind is that BOTH sides use the exact same model of Merkava

How do you figure?

[instagoat 133]

I think BIS added that IDF stuff to Iran army , because it is cool modern looking and more advanced than usual

Yeah, that´s MW2 disease. "We simply use it because it´s cool, no other reasons given."

Which isn´t a bad thing, apart from being tremendously cheap, in my opinion. :P

And it makes no sense, again, for both factions to use exactly the same MBT. Maybe the vehicles shown right now are just placeholders? Who knows...

How do you figure?

The following: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=196649670381771&set=a.196649517048453.46077.192181357495269&type=1 NATO Merkava (Also seen demoed in the E3 demonstration)

And: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=196649687048436&set=a.196649517048453.46077.192181357495269&type=1 OPFOR Merkava (Also seen in the E3 demo, during the physics demonstration, along with the OPFOR Namer APC.)

The only difference between Nato and Opfor Merkava is that the Nato one is plain grey-green, while the Opfor one has digital camouflage.

Edited June 18, 2011 by InstaGoat

[max power 21]

How do you figure these are opfor and blufor? Perhaps one is 'independent'.

[Maio 293]

And it makes no sense, again, for both factions to use exactly the same MBT. Maybe the vehicles shown right now are just placeholders? Who knows...

.

Well ... NATO is almost out of Europe . The covert mission failed so they had to assemble a force to take the island . They simply gave up on the tanks so they can bring more light armored vehicles that can be converted in tanks killers .

They simply chose flexibility and speed over firepower .