Is Arma 3 authentic?

[genpatton043 10]

I suspect, that by having empty space in an MBT, other components would suffer: either fuel capacity, ammunition storage or even a smaller engine, resulting in not a very optimum performance. Turret itself doesn't look like it could hold the standard count of ammunition.

I read somewhere that the ammo was going to NOT be stored in the turret,or at least the majority of it. I'm guess they've finally fix that tiny flaw in earlier tanks where the turrets pop off the chassis itself after being hit..

I'm still looking for the crew compartment diagram, however I did come across what appears to be best of any specifications for the tank that I've seen yet.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/armata_russian_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_specifications_information_description_pictures.html

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I read somewhere that the ammo was going to NOT be stored in the turret,or at least the majority of it. I'm guess they've finally fix that tiny flaw in earlier tanks where the turrets pop off the chassis itself after being hit..

As suspected,

Armament

The new unmanned remote turret would be equipped with new generation of 125mm smoothbore gun with an automatic loader and 32 rounds ready to use.

Then that's a very bad design decision, coupled with empty space for infantry the whole rear half of the tank is useless, being vulnerable from either a side or rear hit. Whole layout looks like the engine would be spaced in front, not exactly ideal for an MBT.

I <3 M1 Abrams, as you can tell. :)

---------- Post added at 14:56 ---------- Previous post was at 14:46 ----------

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-519.html

If that's their philosophy, then it's a death trap.

[genpatton043 10]

As for the squad compartment, I could be wrong, perhaps it was part of the Black Eagle Program.

But other info on the Armata can be found here;http://www.russianarmor.info/

Some of it is contradictory to the earlier specs as this site claims it'll support a 152mm smoothbore gun

"Crew protection on the tank will be emphasized to a far greater degree than ever before in Russian tank designs. The level of crew protection should ensure its survival when the tank is hit by any anti-tank munitions from any aspect or angle, thanks to the crew placement in a unitary armored pod inside the hull."

"The gun will be a 152mm smoothbore tank gun/ATGM launcher. The development of this system started as far back as end of the fifties for the heavy tanks (originally a rifled gun, probably M-69). The project was revived in the eighties and the gun was significantly redesigned. Even with ordinary powders a very high initial velocity of an APFSDS projectile is achieved. I could not, unfortunately, learn how the caliber increase is going to influence ammunition allowance and rate of fire."

Edited September 13, 2012 by Genpatton043

[NoRailgunner 0]

"Armata" project so far - engine is in the back (for MBT), 3 crew members in the hull and its not like a copy of the Merkava (engine in front) with some extra seats in the rear. ;)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

The most recurring diagram for the Cyrillic "Ðрмата" is the one I posted. Here's another,

http://topwar.ru/12698-minoborony-utverdilo-proekt-armata.html

Again, engine in the front, autoloader right below the turret with the whole armament and crew wedged in between; no idea what's happening in the back. Such dreamers, their best bet is to copy basic design principles of the M1 Abrams or the Merkava and to displace the turret with its ammunition all the way to the back.

[genpatton043 10]

I <3 M1 Abrams, as you can tell.

Yeah, there was a time during the late 80's & early 90's that the M1A2 was going to have a crew less turret system.

---------- Post added at 11:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 AM ----------

Again, engine in the front, autoloader right below the turret with the whole armament and crew wedged in between; no idea what's happening in the back. Such dreamers, their best bet is to copy basic design principles of the M1 Abrams or the Merkava and to displace the turret with its ammunition all the way to the back.

Interesting. That makes it appear as if its going to be more similar to the MGS of the Stryker than an actual MBT.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Yeah, there was a time during the late 80's & early 90's that the M1A2 was going to have a crew less turret system.

And then, they probably came to their senses. I'm afraid to think how much ammunition is stored just below that autoloading pecker on the image above. :icon_mrgreen:

P.S. Flying T-72 turrets is a function of ammunition stored directly below it.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Genpatton043 and Iroquois Pliskin just some new info about the universal combat platform "Armata": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-99 :)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Genpatton043 and Iroquois Pliskin just some new info about the universal combat platform "Armata": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-99 :)

I prefer the source version, Ðрмата :) It says that all turret functions will be remotely controlled by the crew, who will be seated in an isolated, armoured capsule, which supposedly can withstand a hit by any modern tank munition, provided the exterior armour of the tank is even penetrated in the first place.

Similar to a Humvee M2 CROWS system. :)

Edited September 13, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin
Half the post disappeared, fixed.

[genpatton043 10]

P.S. Flying T-72 turrets is a function of ammunition stored directly below it.

Completely though? I was under the impression from ones I saw in Iraq that the automatic ammo-loader had storage space along the rim of the turret also.

,

Edited September 13, 2012 by Genpatton043

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

That's an extreme cook off of a light BTR vehicle, most of the ammo would be fine-grained HE and easily combustible, storage also happens to be not in the turret.

Modern MBTs have their cannon ammo in the back of the turret for a reason.

P.S. You better edit it, since that vid is worth an infraction, confirmed by myself and others. :P

EDIT on your Edit: In this case, the turret flew due to the initial pressure created by the AT charge, which illustrates my point even more: no turret, yet you see such a catastrophic failure of design, that is storage of ammunition in the main hull section.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[genpatton043 10]

I prefer the source version, Ðрмата :) It says that all turret functions will be remotely controlled by the crew, who will be seated in an isolated, armoured capsule, which supposedly can withstand a hit by any modern tank munition, provided the exterior armour of the tank is even penetrated in the first place.

Similar to a Humvee M2 CROWS system. :)

NoRailGunner. I tend not to use Wikipedia all that oten unless I absolutely have to. I prefer;

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2012/russia-120326-rianovosti02.htm

However, since they have limited info there i did look at that wiki page earlier. In fact, the link at the bottom of the page is where I got the specs for it from.

---------- Post added at 12:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 PM ----------

That's an extreme cook off of a light BTR vehicle, most of the ammo would be fine-grained HE and easily combustible, storage also happens to be not in the turret.

Modern MBTs have their cannon ammo in the back of the turret for a reason.

P.S. You better edit it, since that vid is worth an infraction, confirmed by myself and others. :P

EDIT on your Edit: In this case, the turret flew due to the initial pressure created by the AT charge, which illustrates my point even more: no turret, yet you see such a catastrophic failure of design, that is storage of ammunition in the main hull section.

I think i have to partially disagree with you there. That's a tracked vehicle, not wheeled as the BTR's. Turret looks too large to be a BMP also.

EDIT- I'm looking at it from frame 0:01 a second or so before its hit.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Regardless, of what tanks BI use in ArmA III, I'd like to see crew and ammunition compartments. Scenarios with the crew staying alive, when a tank is fully disabled, but not completely destroyed as it currently happens in ArmA II, would bring so much variety to the gameplay, unless of course the ammo section is hit, then it's full-on fireworks like we have now.

They can already simulate engine blocks in various vehicles.

[genpatton043 10]

Regardless, of what tanks BI use in ArmA III, I'd like to see crew and ammunition compartments. Scenarios with the crew staying alive, when a tank is fully disabled, but not completely destroyed as it currently happens in ArmA II, would bring so much variety to the gameplay, unless of course the ammo section is hit, then it's full-on fireworks like we have now.

They can already simulate engine blocks in various vehicles.

Now that I can agree with.:)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I think i have to partially disagree with you there. That's a tracked vehicle, not wheeled as the BTR's. Turret looks too large to be a BMP also.

Can't really tell because of the quality of the footage, but it could be a BMP-3, which also doesn't have ammo in the turret, and which used to be our favourite fireworks display vehicle in ACE 2 - it simulated cook off and various armour penetration values. :)

Ka-boom!

[genpatton043 10]

Gotcha. Regardless, thanks for the tip.

---------- Post added at 12:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 PM ----------

Upon translation of the text, you would be correct, its a BMP is what it states so the BMP-3 would be the most likely candidate.

[chortles 263]

Interesting. That makes it appear as if its going to be more similar to the MGS of the Stryker than an actual MBT.

Recall that according to the blurb I grabbed, the "Armata" design is supposed to support a number of different vehicles in a manner similar to how the Stryker series has multiple variants including the MGS, though seemingly meant with the MBT as the baseline vehicle instead of an APC/IFV (the M1126 ICV) as with the Stryker?

As for not adopting the T-95/Black Eagle in ARMA 3, they may not have been so known to BI as the Merkava was at the time of deciding on an OPFOR MBT, on top of both the Object 195/T-95 and Black Eagle being cancelled programs (and unlike the RAH-66 it does not appear that the T-95 even made it to prototype), while conversely the Armata is too new and seemingly unknown, and the direction of ARMA 3's development focus and goals priority implies that they're more concerned with fundamental aspects of the engine and "embedding improvements at the core level" than on what someone else thinks is a 'better' MBT, especially if they have more Merkava assets in the game already than the bare minimum to get a screenshot while none of the other three (Object 195/T-95, Black Eagle and Armata) even got far enough along to prototype, much less with commonly-agreed upon numbers and not conflicting sources so that one has to pick a "most common" answer.

(Speaking of this "embedding improvements at the core level", Paradox Interactive has been presenting that as a reason for developing Europa Universalis IV: "With each successive expansion we have gradually sought to cram more and more information into the same interface. With a new game, and the freedom it offers, we can start from square one with the UI," and "Through expansions we were able to differentiate countries more, but with EU4 we are going to make sure this is in the game from the start." While that game mostly doesn't have to do with ARMA 3, these quotes on development do have parallels with the approach that RiE and other ARMA 3 devs have described.)

[kilroy the nerd 14]

I can get behind that. Especially seeing as how most of the models in the ArmA series are hi-res retex's from a certain military version of the game, (I have it, I should know) and it can't be that hard to do.

We're talking about NATO's domain here, it really should be a Leopard or Challenger.

By 2035, Germany has a new Leopard 3. With a 150mm smoothbore L-85 made by Rheinmetall and the ability to turn invisible, with a engine the same as used in hydrogen submarines.

[Corvinus 35]

I think it's my duty to join the "Armata" discussion since I happen to be an expert on this subject:blues:.

First of all, some of you guys mentioned Object 640 as a good option for the OPFOR MBT. Well, maybe some of you forgot it, but BIS already gave Iranians something that closely resembles Ob. 640, so I'll proclaim this case closed.

Now for "Armata" ("T-99", as well as "T-95", is nothing but an erroneous moniker). I'm sorry to inform you, gentlemen, but all the pictures that you have posted have nothing to do with this project (I can clarify the origins of these pictures, if someone asks). As of now there are only four pictures from somewhat credible sources. First is an early concept of the family:

Second is a heavy APC from the same concept, but in greater detail:

And the most recent are these two photos of a scale model (No, it's not in the same scale as other models. And no, it's not a Gatling-type gun on the side but a regular autocannon or a grenade launcher in a protective housing.):

Please note that it is not a MBT. The inscription on the plate next to it says:

Artillery Combat Vehicle on the Unified Basic Platform "Armata".

Don't ask me what "Artillery Combat Vehicle" means - I don't know. Even the most venerated Russian military experts don't know for sure, they only were able to make few theories about it (yet again, if someone is interested I can describe these theories in detail).

The new approach in designing this heavy platform is that it's not just a development of a new MBT and then machines based on it, but a development of a platform itself, to which a MBT is just one of the variants, not the core product (I hope I'm still comprehensible). In order to achieve it, two different yet highly unified chassis are expected to be designed: one with an engine in front (APC, engineering vehicle etc.) and one with engine in back (MBT, self-propelled artillery etc.). APC is going to have 12.7 RWS, artillery most likely is going to be "Coalition" with a single cannon, as they scrapped the variant with two guns. MBT, as I said, will have engine in the back and a crew department in front, separated from the rest of the tank's hull by a thick armoured wall, thus enclosing a crew in an armoured capsule. The turret is completely unmanned, it's just one big RWS. Main gun is going to be 125 mm., complete with new ammo-types and new autoloader. This autoloader is most likely going to be another damned "carousel", but there is still hope for a turret box akin to the "Leclerc" one, but even if it'll be a carousel-type, the survivability of the crew is still going to be drastically increased in comparison to the Soviet tanks. Engine is 1200 hp. Ð-85-3Ð diesel. Only name is known about the active protection system - "Afghanite". This is all the information to be officially confirmed, everything else is just rumours and speculations.

Now back to Arma 3. I have to admit that I have rather mixed feelings about the idea of "Armata" serving as OPFOR MBT. On one hand, having such a platform with a variety of vehicles based on it can fully substitute "Merkava" and vehicles on its base, freeing the latter for NATO use, as they seem to lack a faction-specific MBT at the moment, while Iranians have both "Merkava" and "Object 640"-thingie. On the other, as Russian I'm pretty tired to see Russians on the side or Russian-made armament at the hands of OPFOR, whoever it be: Chinese, Iranians, rogue Americans, Nazis, Martians or Giant Dinosaurs from Outer Space. I'd rather prefer to see "Armata" used by Russians themselves, in a Russian-themed DLC or community-made addon.

That's all, thank you for your time, and as always: have a nice day sorry for my English.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Corvinus

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Looks like a tracked Stryker concept and if the "Russian Military experts" don't know what that is, looks like another "popil". :D Still, unification of utilities on a single platform is warranted, but the MBT should stay in its own class & chassis, otherwise all other APC iterations become far too heavy for the task.

[Corvinus 35]

"Russian Military experts" don't know what that is, looks like another "popil". :D

"Russian Military experts" don't know what ACV means, and its place in the project, but the project itself is a solid undertaking. Simply, there is a lack of information about it, that's why everyone have to guess.

Still, unification of utilities on a single platform is warranted, but the MBT should stay in its own class & chassis, otherwise all other APC iterations become far too heavy for the task.

It's not like the whole army is going to use only this chassis, quite otherwise, its only for comparatively small-numbered heavy brigades, there will also be light brigades on "Volks" and/or "Typhoons", and the core of the army - medium brigades of two types - wheeled on the "Boomerang" platform (so we'll have a real "Stryker" doppelganger (or, more precisely, "Patria" doppelganger)) and a tracked one on the "Kurganets-25" platform. So in one type of brigade you'll have only one chassis for everything - vehicles with heavy weaponry (MBTs and their substitutes), APC, artillery etc.

I mean, you know the word "popil", but never heard about written above? U wat ladchapm8?!

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I mean, you know the word "popil", but never heard about written above?

I stop following similar prototypes, the second it is clear that they will not see the light of day, like so many other "prospective" creations, that allegedly had no analogues/equivalents in the world. :D :D :D Boomerang appeals to me, though - could fully replace the BMP.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[slatts 1978]

Wasn't the Iranian Merkava a place holder?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Far too detailed for that, though anything is possible. Namer would also have to go, http://www.abload.de/img/240892_19664966371510j66aw.jpg

Looks like a lean, mean, Iranian fighting machine if I ever saw one - http://www.abload.de/img/244149_19664967038177t0ig7.jpg Stick another flag, touch up geometry here and there, and voila, MOSSAD won't go after our Devs. Hopefully. :D Here's RL for comparison - http://www.supervideo.com/MerkSimanIV2010a.jpg Is it me or does the whole in-game model look elongated and flattened compared to the original? Could be the angle of the screenshot.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[Sennacherib 0]

why BIS don't create a fictive modernization of the zulfiqar-3 : http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachments/iranian-question/24981d1303781571-zulfiqar-3-mbt-26_147103_3d663c850f5d3fa.jpg

this would be in my opinion a better idea.