Arma 3: Confirmed features | info & discussion

[msy 22]

Is there any news about personal anti-tank weapons so far?

I even haven't seen JAVELIN in any pre view videos, maybe it is so out dated for that time?

[danny96 79]

Is there any news about personal anti-tank weapons so far?

I even haven't seen JAVELIN in any pre view videos, maybe it is so out dated for that time?

Well, If there won't be armor system then It will look like ARMAII - Take out T90 with MG bullets!

[Maio 293]

Is there any news about personal anti-tank weapons so far?

I even haven't seen JAVELIN in any pre view videos, maybe it is so out dated for that time?

We can seen a launcher on the point man's back in the

, however it's hard to identify it. Seeing that (some?) tanks in ArmA 3 can be equipped with Trophy APS(or something similar), I wonder how the ATGM's will work in A3. Edited May 7, 2012 by Maio
Focacia with garlic sauce and pastrami

[msy 22]

Well, If there won't be armor system then It will look like ARMAII - Take out T90 with MG bullets!

You remind me, we have a 12.7mm sniper for that anti armor mission.:D

---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:30 PM ----------

We can seen a launcher on the point man's back in the

, however it's hard to identify it. Seeing that (some?) tanks in ArmA 3 can be equipped with Trophy APS(or something similar), I wonder how the ATGM's will work in A3.

I see, it looks like a rocket launcher. I didn't pay attention before...

[Corvinus 35]

That brings up the issues of what vehicles will fill in the L-ATV role.

It still bothers me a lot that Iranians have Oshkosh M-ATV as their lightweight troops carrier, so, perhaps it can be used by both sides and originally was meant to be NATO vehicle?

[Tonci87 163]

OK... so I was thinking. There is no way the Fennek will be NATO's main Light Armored Tactical Vehicle , it's a Recon vehicles after all and can fit only 3 crew members inside. Now I doubt BIS modified it so it could fit more, it does not look modified from the outside. That brings up the issues of what vehicles will fill in the L-ATV role. Seeing how BIS is going with vehicles of European origin for NATO/US, I'm kinda hoping for the Dingo 2 or the Mowag Eagle 5. If not... any of the current US JLTV program contenders would be nice.

Thoughts on this?

I guess they will choose the Patria AMV

[Maio 293]

I guess they will choose the Patria AMV

To clarify, when I said L-ATV I was thinking of the role an M-ATV, HMMWV, Eagle, Gaz Tigr, Iveco LMV, Dingo 2, Jakal, etc would fill. The Patria is an IFV/APC (AMV) by nature. I kinda hope it will be the DIngo 2... from my point of view it just fits in the whole setting, plus it's something fresh to the series.

[Corvinus 35]

The Patria is an IFV/APC (AMV) by nature.

Since you've mentioned the Patria, it raises another question: what Iranians will have for a medium APC? They have Namers, but it's a heavy APC build on a tank base, therefore it's clearly belongs to a different category than amphibious, wheeled Patria. In my opinion, each side should have at least three armored platforms: heavy platform - a tank and vehicles on it's base, medium platform - a wheeled (I guess wheeled vehicles are more suited for a Limnos terrain than tracked ones) APC around 25-tonnes of weight, preferably amphibious, and vehicles on it's base, and finally a family of light four-wheel drive vehicles. Of course, each side's vehicles should differentiate from what the other side have.

[[evo] dan 79]

Don't forget supply trucks to carry mass inf around aswell as cargo. (maybe some support vehicles too for each side)

[Maio 293]

Since you've mentioned the Patria, it raises another question: what Iranians will have for a medium APC? They have Namers, but it's a heavy APC build on a tank base, therefore it's clearly belongs to a different category than amphibious, wheeled Patria. In my opinion, each side should have at least three armored platforms: heavy platform - a tank and vehicles on it's base, medium platform - a wheeled (I guess wheeled vehicles are more suited for a Limnos terrain than tracked ones) APC around 25-tonnes of weight, preferably amphibious, and vehicles on it's base, and finally a family of light four-wheel drive vehicles. Of course, each side's vehicles should differentiate from what the other side have.

Here is what I think based on the info available:

Heavy: Merkava and the T-100 These will fill in the MBT role.

Medium: Namer. APC and IFV role

Light: M-ATV. Light armored tactical vehicle role (transport,recon, light APC/IFV)

EDIT

The medium utility trucks are a complete mystery... I cant wait and see what BIS chose for Iran and NATO :)

[carlostex 38]

Man i can't believe it's one year now, we were on a frenzy trying to figure out all the hints BIS gave us.

[Corvinus 35]

Dan;2146065']Don't forget supply trucks to carry mass inf around aswell as cargo. (maybe some support vehicles too for each side)

Yes' date=' something like KMW Grizzly will make sense, besides, HEMTT is already confirmed.

Medium: Namer. APC and IFV role

But Namer is based on Merkava tank, therefore it's in heavy category. And I believe it's too light-armed to fit into IFV role.

Personally, I see the vehicles roster like this:

NATO:

Heavy: Merkava and vehicles on its base, like Namer. (Since in the Armaverse Merkava is named Slammer M2A1, I think it's safe to assume that it is the NATO MBT).

Medium: Patria AMV and vehicles on it's base, like this mortar system.

Light: M-ATV.

Logistics: HEMTT.

Iran:

Heavy: T-100 and vehicles on its base.

Medium: ZBD-09.

Light: XL2060L.

Logistics: WS2250

It's just a variant, an example of platforms with various weight which should work together in symbiosis.

[Maio 293]

But Namer is based on Merkava tank, therefore it's in heavy category. And I believe it's too light-armed to fit into IFV role.

Yes that is true, but keep in mind that vehicles are modular now, we can slap on some extra fire power on most of them. Also keep in mind that vehicles in ArmA are defined by functionality. The Namer might be based on the Markeva and be considered a heavy APC, but it still falls into the "medium armoured" class in ArmA.

Personally, I see the vehicles roster like this:

NATO:

Heavy: Merkava and vehicles on its base, like Namer. (Since in the Armaverse Merkava is named Slammer M2A1, I think it's safe to assume that it is the NATO MBT).

Medium: Patria AMV and vehicles on it's base, like this mortar system.

Light: M-ATV.

Logistics: HEMTT.

The Namer and M-ATV are clearly Iran's toys. It's true that now we can swap camo/paint jobs and the lines get blurred, but BIS intended them to be operated by Iran (I'm talking about the SP Campaign here)

Iran:

Heavy: T-100 and vehicles on its base.

Medium: ZBD-09.

Light: XL2060L.

Logistics: WS2250

It's just a variant, an example of platforms with various weight which should work together in symbiosis.

Nah, BIS has to keep some of that Chinese hardware for future expansions. China is locked in a cold war with the US after all and those S-E Asian proxy states need modern military hardware ;)

[Corvinus 35]

Also keep in mind that vehicles in ArmA are defined by functionality.

And functionality of Patria AMV and Namer is quite different; one is amphibious vehicle with protection from 14.5 rounds, suited for a cross-country, while the other is 60-tonnes monster with ability to withstand multiple RPG hits, suited for deserts and urban combat. The only thing that unites them is that they both are APC.

The Namer and M-ATV are clearly Iran's toys.

I don't quite understand why. The only explanation I have is that in the Armaverse (that excuse again...) they were designed in Iran.

Nah, BIS has to keep some of that Chinese hardware for future expansions.

Vehicles I listed are just for example.

[Maio 293]

And functionality of Patria AMV and Namer is quite different; one is amphibious vehicle with protection from 14.5 rounds, suited for a cross-country, while the other is 60-tonnes monster with ability to withstand multiple RPG hits, suited for deserts and urban combat. The only thing that unites them is that they both are APC.

Yes... but at the end of the day when the ArmA player wants armored transport that packs some fire power, he thinks of the APC/IFV. That's what I meant by functionality, not precise vehicle characteristics such as amphibious capabilities or weight.

Sure weight will be simulated now for vehicles and they will handle different, but an APC/IFV is still an APC/IFV.

I don't quite understand why. The only explanation I have is that in the Armaverse (that excuse again...) they were designed in Iran.

It's because all of the screenshots we have seen until, the M-ATV and Namer were in the Iranian camo scheme and were driven/were accompanied by Iranians. There was a pic on the A3 website factions section of the M-ATV in the resistance camo scheme, but it was specified that they captured some Iranian vehicles.

[frostwyrm333 1]

I almost forgot, they used normal anims on female model so this probably means animation retargeting. Not sure who would find this important though, maybe addon makers.

[Corvinus 35]

It's because all of the screenshots we have seen until, the M-ATV and Namer were in the Iranian camo scheme and were driven/were accompanied by Iranians.

Yeah, but still I find it strange for Iranians to use M-ATV. I mean, even when Chinese copy something, they usually alter some small details, like in their copy of HMMWV, the XL2060L, they changed headlights and stuff like that, but here we see a regular, unaltered Oshkosh M-ATV.

[instagoat 133]

Yeah, but still I find it strange for Iranians to use M-ATV. I mean, even when Chinese copy something, they usually alter some small details, like in their copy of HMMWV, the XL2060L, they changed headlights and stuff like that, but here we see a regular, unaltered Oshkosh M-ATV.

I think in this case they used the M-ATV because they thought there was no other vehicle in its class that looked as cool. I mean, really, the current Iranian equivalent seems to be this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rakhsh_APC <- plain ugly. The others they have are something that looks like a three axle BTR-60 and a Brazilian scout-car.

The only other vehicle in the same class I can think of, of similar role, is the russian Tigr and it´s successor/development, the Volk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VPK-3927_Volk

So I think the M-ATV being used by the Iranians is really just an invoking of the rule of cool, rather than realism. Unless devs enlighten me as to how this vehicle came into mass-posession of the iranian army, this is the way I will see it. :>

Cheerio

Insta

[Maio 293]

Yeah, but still I find it strange for Iranians to use M-ATV. I mean, even when Chinese copy something, they usually alter some small details, like in their copy of HMMWV, the XL2060L, they changed headlights and stuff like that, but here we see a regular, unaltered Oshkosh M-ATV.

Who says they copied it? Maybe they bought M-ATV's from Oshkosh or maybe they licensed the design and are producing it themselves.

[Corvinus 35]

So I think the M-ATV being used by the Iranians is really just an invoking of the rule of cool, rather than realism.

Should've choose Oshkosh Sand Cat then. Or Volk indeed. Because sorry, but the M-ATV is just plain ugly.

Who says they copied it? Maybe they bought M-ATV's from Oshkosh or maybe they licensed the design and are producing it themselves.

It's possible, actually. After all Iran is a regional superpower in Arma 3, so I don't think they have any problems with embargo and stuff.

[Black Cat 10]

Posting this from authentic thread:

I have been trying to get this point across for ages!

The Mi-48 is an unlicensed "upgrade" of the Mi-28.

The Merkava/M-ATV/Namer/TAR-21 are either stolen, conquered, or just downright duplicated.

It all makes sense!

And, now that I look at it, maybe it would make more sense that the US/Israel supported the Iran rebels during their revolution and supplied them all these vehicles.

Then Iran goes "back to normal" and NATO feels stupid.

Now it makes even more sense.

[Corvinus 35]

Like supporting the secular uprising against the ayatollahs and then helping the new Iran with technologies and economy only to nurture a new uncontemplated threat? That's quite cool and believable scenario, actually.

[[evo] dan 79]

Like supporting the secular uprising against the ayatollahs and then helping the new Iran with technologies and economy only to nurture a new uncontemplated threat? That's quite cool and believable scenario, actually.

Its not like it hasn't happened before to the US, so yes, would make a lot of sense concerning the equipment.

[Daniel 0]

I think in this case they used the M-ATV because they thought there was no other vehicle in its class that looked as cool.

I'd just like to state I have no issue with BIS choosing to recreate vehicles that are considered particularly ugly. This is war after all. Hell, where would we be without the Apache? :p

I'd say it's either a placeholder, or Iran bought a batch off Oshkosh.

Dan;2146281']Its not like it hasn't happened before to the US' date=' so yes, would make a lot of sense concerning the equipment.[/quote']

Exactly. Look at the Falklands conflict. Very similar hardware on both sides, yet very different forces on the whole.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Hmmm noticed bikini missing from 'Tactical gear&Clothes'

must need updating