Tank Questions & Hopes

[Yairweinberg 1]

Yeah I have more questions...

About the tanks this time

The M2A1 (Merkava Mk.4): Will we be able to use the 60mm mortar in the tank or does it not exist in Armaversum?

On some Merkava tanks there's 2 machineguns (See picture http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/z_merkava_2.jpg)

Will both be on the M2A1? And will they be controlled from inside the tank or from the outside? Or optional?

The Trophy active protection system which is in our timeline is in active service on the Merkava 4s, Will it be also in Armaversum on the M2A1s? or Maybe the

"Quick Kill" from Raytheon which is also an Active protection system from the U.S since they didn't want to use Trophy.

In the Merkava Mk.4 there is enough room for 4-5 infantry men, Will it be possible to actually put 5 infantry in there along side the crew? Also there is a "door"

at the back of the tank for these kind of things, Will it be usable to let the tanks crew pop out from the back and away from the enemies line of fire?

The Merkavas engine is located at the front of tank to use it as an extra piece of armor if needed, If the M2A1 will be hit at the front will it have a chance

to stop the shell from killing the crew but at the cost of the engine?

Object 195 A.K.A T-95 (Not sure what its called in Armaversum): Will the 125mm gun (5mm more than the 120mm of the M2A1) make any sort of difference?

Will the big lump of armor on the front of the turret (See picture http://www.abload.de/img/327203_23071675030839x3i95.jpg) come into effect?

Namer APC (Not sure what its called in Armaversum): I'm guessing the machinegun and grenade launcher are obvious but there is also a possibility

of external remote controlled 30-mm autocannon and Spike anti-tank guided missiles being considered will we get that option as well?

The Iron Fist active protection system can be mounted and I think it is mounted on the Namer APCs, Will we get that option?

There is a 60mm mortar in the Namer APC too, again will we get to use it?

Overall questions: Will armor sloping do anything?

Will armor angling do anything?

Will all of the tanks&APCs be exactly the same in performance or will they have stuff that they do best compared to the others?

If the Active protection systems will be used, will the rest of the tanks and APCs get some sort of protection as well?

Will the caliber of the cannons make any difference?

Will tanks be able to bring down helicopters?

Will there be reactive armor? Will it be optional to put on or will it come as a variant of the tank&APC?

Will the place the tank or APC is hit make a difference on which crew member will be hit and which module will be destroyed without blowing up the whole tank and killing everyone?

That's pretty much everything I remember I wanted to ask... Any answers or guesses will be good :D

BTW I know the tanks will be released in Beta or just in the full release and than we might know all these things but its worth a try :-)

Edited March 31, 2013 by Yairweinberg
Added the last sentence

[maturin 12]

Five extra millimeters of barrel diameter lets you launch bigger HEAT rounds, but existing Russian 125mm KE ammo has always been horrible.

[skelebob9 2]

Will the caliber of the cannons make any difference?

After adding in a tank myself I can say that the caliber really does make a difference. While it won't make a difference ingame to what ammo it can use, it sure makes a difference to how it deals its damage.

Caliber: 1

Damage: 50

One shot to an Ifrit, I managed to danage its engine.

Caliber: 50

Damage: 50

One shot to an Ifrit, same position and direction and I managed to take out the engine, two wheels and severely damage its hull.

You can test it out with regular weapons; I guess the caliber is just how much the damage is amplified along with its penetration factor. For the tank that I use I changed the caliber of the HE and the caliber of the AP rounds to test them: AP rounds often went straight through civilian trucks while the HE rounds exploded on impact (as you'd expect)

Against people, though, the HE rounds exploded (and the people with them, caliber of 12) while the AP rounds (with a caliber of 40) definitely showed their huge caliber. Hitting a person with a 40 caliber tank shell caused them to pretty much explode with blood with no visual fiery explosion.

Obviously against armoured vehicles the caliber will matter; if an enemy tank's armour can withstand a caliber 20 shell and you're firing caliber 12 shells at it, it's simply going to leave a mark on the side of the tank.

[Yairweinberg 1]

After adding in a tank myself I can say that the caliber really does make a difference. While it won't make a difference ingame to what ammo it can use, it sure makes a difference to how it deals its damage.

Caliber: 1

Damage: 50

One shot to an Ifrit, I managed to danage its engine.

Caliber: 50

Damage: 50

One shot to an Ifrit, same position and direction and I managed to take out the engine, two wheels and severely damage its hull.

You can test it out with regular weapons; I guess the caliber is just how much the damage is amplified along with its penetration factor. For the tank that I use I changed the caliber of the HE and the caliber of the AP rounds to test them: AP rounds often went straight through civilian trucks while the HE rounds exploded on impact (as you'd expect)

Against people, though, the HE rounds exploded (and the people with them, caliber of 12) while the AP rounds (with a caliber of 40) definitely showed their huge caliber. Hitting a person with a 40 caliber tank shell caused them to pretty much explode with blood with no visual fiery explosion.

Obviously against armoured vehicles the caliber will matter; if an enemy tank's armour can withstand a caliber 20 shell and you're firing caliber 12 shells at it, it's simply going to leave a mark on the side of the tank.

Ah that's a good answer! Thanks now we got this out of the way

[kireta21 13]

Actually Caliber was in ArmA2 already and it's not real caliber, but penetration (kind of), basically how deep into model damage done by "Hit" value is calculated. This was mostly used for helis allowing them to take shitton of small arms fire, but be downed by few HMG rounds.

It works somehow for tanks (better than nothing huh?), but has limits.

Vehicle 3d model's body work as armor taking all DMG from low penetration weapons (so it doesn't reach vital parts) untill vehicle runs out of HP, so armor is defined by 3d model.

Component damage is still based on damage accumulation, so basically HPs.

It seem type of material does not affect Caliber effect in ArmA2, so plywood provides as much protection as DU plate.

ArmA2 vehicles have no ammunition storage for simulating catastrophic damage (in ArmA2 tanks explode when their engine or hull runs out of HP).

And there's no after-penetration effects, so only parts hit directly are affected by Caliber, anything else recieve only damage done by external explosion (splash damage). So even if we get ammunition as part of vehicle, it won't coock-off unless hit directly.

But that's ArmA2, there's still some time before ArmA3 Beta, so let's see what BIS will come up with.

[Yairweinberg 1]

Actually Caliber was in ArmA2 already and it's not real caliber, but penetration (kind of), basically how deep into model damage done by "Hit" value is calculated. This was mostly used for helis allowing them to take shitton of small arms fire, but be downed by few HMG rounds.

It works somehow for tanks (better than nothing huh?), but has limits.

Vehicle 3d model's body work as armor taking all DMG from low penetration weapons (so it doesn't reach vital parts) untill vehicle runs out of HP, so armor is defined by 3d model.

Component damage is still based on damage accumulation, so basically HPs.

It seem type of material does not affect Caliber effect in ArmA2, so plywood provides as much protection as DU plate.

ArmA2 vehicles have no ammunition storage for simulating catastrophic damage (in ArmA2 tanks explode when their engine or hull runs out of HP).

And there's no after-penetration effects, so only parts hit directly are affected by Caliber, anything else recieve only damage done by external explosion (splash damage). So even if we get ammunition as part of vehicle, it won't coock-off unless hit directly.

But that's ArmA2, there's still some time before ArmA3 Beta, so let's see what BIS will come up with.

I expected that because lets face it Arma isn't a Tank simulator and it mainly focuses on Infantry so I have a feeling that Tanks wont be as realistic

[Tonci87 163]

I really really wish for a more realistic armor penetration system. It is ridiculous that you can kill an M1A1 by shooting it with a T34.

[Blaf 1]

I really really wish for a more realistic armor penetration system. It is ridiculous that you can kill an M1A1 by shooting it with a T34.

This!

[PFC Magician 10]

i hope:

tanks can destroy bulding on collision, with penalization damaged tracked crawler (yellow)

custom vehicles, engineers/heavy factory/farp/repair truck, should be able change the color (camo/solid), armament,or defense on APC and tracked vehicles.

electronic failure on terrestrial vehicles, loosing computer targeting, thermals sensors, fail engine start, lose hud/gps , ligths (stop including and if the added, beacon)

Edited April 2, 2013 by PFC Magician

[mr.g-c 6]

I really really wish for a more realistic armor penetration system. It is ridiculous that you can kill an M1A1 by shooting it with a T34.

Wishing for this since OFP.

Will never happen. BIS doesn't like realism, despite the claim on the package of the game. And i have tons of proof in my mind that happened the last years here in this forums and through interviews.

Soory, dont wanted to sound negative again. I've bought Supporter Edition of course. Maybe a miracle will happen at the end...

[Jex 1]

An improvement on the tank systems and armour would be very nice indeed. I wished they had just improved on all the realism aspects just a little with each version of the game, so things start basic but progressively get more complicated. By now, tanks really should have a decent damage model.

Was it arma 1 or 2 you could blow a tank up with an MG?

[byku 13]

If you have shot enough then yes :P.... horrible.

[andersson 285]

I wish for interiors. But my hope is low.

[Yairweinberg 1]

Yeah armor value seems to be lacking in Arma.. Maybe it will be better this time...

[Blaf 1]

Worst thing is when you realize World of Tanks has better armor simulation than arma :(

[Jex 1]

Worst thing is when you realize World of Tanks has better armor simulation than arma :(

Yeah BIS - get with the program already!!! http://forums.bistudio.com/images/smilies/wink.png <---- wtf is this?

[Yairweinberg 1]

World of tanks suppose to have better armor simulation than ArmA its a game based purely on tanks

[Lauxman 10]

World War II Online has had a better armor simulation than ArmA for like, a decade now.

[Bee8190 10]

I wish for interiors. But my hope is low.

I too would like to finally see detailed interiors but something tells me that in the end we'll be happy enough if we get proper damage model in the first place...

[Tonci87 163]

And I think a proper damage model is far more important than interiors. OFP had them, but how much time did you actually spend looking at them? How much time do you spend looking at the interior if you are a gunner on a BTR-90 in Arma 2? None.

[Saliiim 10]

I agree, I'd like interiors, which I'm optimistic will be added (since BIS made a big deal about the detail of vehicle interiors). But yes, penetration modelling is more important, although this will no doubt be added in ACE3 (which I've heard is already in development).

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Better Armor Damage System ======> Huge Gameplay Change.

[nodunit 397]

proper or better armor penetration and deflection system > interiors. As much as I love the immersion interiors give I'd rather have something VERY important to gameplay elements rather than an interior that won't do much other than be eye candy (put some screens for a CITV type thing and to see where the gunner is looking then we'll talk)

Arma 2 and arrowhead have bullet penetration for fences and buildings with varied values pending on the round and surface type.

Operation Arrowhead added a system for wheeled vehicles (or cars).

Shoot at a lightly armored humvee (US not USMC) and the bullet will pass through and kill occupants, however nothing short of a HMG will penetrate the armored humvee so why can't a system like this be applied to armor?

Seems a bit silly to have certain systems for one vehicle class and not others when the same principles apply.

Edited April 7, 2013 by NodUnit

[maturin 12]

Shoot at a lightly armored humvee (US not USMC) and the bullet will pass through and kill occupants, however nothing short of a HMG will penetrate the armored humvee so why can't a system like this be applied to armor?

Actually, such a system already exists, for the frustrating handful of vehicles that actually have crew damage proxy models.

But the properties of anti-tank weapons cannot be modeled by the rudimentary formulas of ArmA 2 penetration. It barely works for bullets and bricks, let alone RHA, ceramics and HEAT. And when you're not talking about squishy drivers, penetration and damage are different things.

[Beagle 684]

The only thing that Iron Front based on A2 engine was good in was the tank damage model...it is on par with first "Steel Beasts".

So yes it is already possible to have a decent armour mpenetration model even in old A2 engine...its just a matter of the will to mplement it.