Marshall vs. Patria AMV

[runekn 3]

So I've done some research on the Patria AMV, and there's a bunch of stuff I wanna take up for discussion and maybe some design/choice explanation from BI.

First of all, The Marshall doesn't have any commander seat. You've probably noticed that there's 2 crew hatches on the top of the turret, but only 1 is being used. I've found a picture which show (on a different 40mm turret variant) both hatches being used, so a total of 3 crew members are present. http://www.military-today.com/apc/patria_amv_l4.jpg

I can hardly see this as a mistake from BI, so why did they choose to leave the commander seat out?

Ticket about this: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9773

Second: On the real world Patria AMV, we see a periscope thingy on the top: http://www.military-quotes.com/media/data/620/patriaamv.jpg

Why was this left out in the current version of the Marshall? We can even see that it's on early pictures of the Marshall: http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/253/5/8/arma_3_wip_apc_amv_nato_by_arma3-d49h4ds.jpg

And last, why does the exhaust hole thingy only work on the right side? Is it the same with Patria?

Alright, since both the commander seat and commander sight thingy has been added to the dev build, I guess this thread can be ditched in the ocean. Unless there's something else someone wanna come up with?

Edited July 22, 2013 by runekn

[kremator 1065]

Yeah but this is da future .... everything can change.

[TGxDibs 10]

I do love me some future :)

[TGxBrownie 10]

Yeah but this is da future .... everything can change.

So what are the improvements on the vehicles in Arma's futuristic implementation of the vehicle? I ask because I don't know and based on what runekn has said without these 2 features it seems the vehicles have been worsened

[f27sharps 1]

The patria in the game is an AMV Patria 360, the picture that you post is a picture of another AMV variant (turret 25 mm)

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5830/amvdenellct306zk.jpg

In both, You right the AMV series have Driver, Gunner and Commander.

[runekn 3]

If we can get BI out of their hidie hole... :rolleyes:

[Wolfstriked 11]

Going from the field manual explanation of vehicle commanding I was quite excited to see how it played out.This is what it says there under vehicles and commanding.....

COMMANDING

The commander in vehicles issues orders to the driver and gunner.Commands are displayed in the message log for crew members to then carry out.Issue move commands by pressing WASD/Control speed with Q&E/Issue fire commands by pointing at target and pressing TAB/Commander is able to acquire manual fire by pressing (').

The Marid has no commander position either.On the AMV the spot where the commanders periscope was placed is now just a round hole that has been welded shut.Sadly it seems armored vehicles are getting the worst from the cutting block.

[blu3sman 11]

I am anticipating response a la "Commanders hatches were welded due to balancing issues" :rolleyes:

[runekn 3]

I am anticipating response a la "Commanders hatches were welded due to balancing issues" :rolleyes:

Oh god.... I hope not .

C'mon pettka/Royalty/Dwarven/DnA, say the magic words: "Sry, we forgot to implement it, will be in next build" :rolleyes:

Edited July 2, 2013 by runekn

[instagoat 133]

The Marshall direly needs the commander with his CITV. I´d be rather annoyed if they decide to cut that out for "balancing" purposes, especially if their balancing as they say is geared towards player vs AI parity, rather than MP parity. MP parity implies that both sides use identical tools, however, that´s for games like counterstrike and team fortress.

Why was the AMV-7s Commanders Sight removed?

[BallSabre 1]

Being the commader of a Patria AMV I can say to you all that there is a commander seat in EVERY version of ALL patria vehicles and color me mad if there is a military vehicle of similar class that doesn't.

As a side note I hope we get more versions of this vehicle since the one we have now is the absolutely worst version. The things the Patria AMV has to sacrifice for that ever "usefull" swimming ability do NOT balance out.

There are some really advanced robot "turrets"(more like a mechanical arm) with a 30mm autocanon and missiles with enough armor to shrug off rpgs and being invulnerable to 12,7mm HMG and antimaterial rifles. Would love to show a picture to you guys but you know how this goes. There are a few pictures on the net if someone feels up to searching for those unofficial sources.

Honestly I think these vehicles are place holders more than anything else.

[rockdpm 10]

It needs a dire speed boost when going up hills. litteraly it drives up a small non steep hill almost as fast as it travels on water

[Zorg_DK 10]

It needs a dire speed boost when going up hills. litteraly it drives up a small non steep hill almost as fast as it travels on water

Indeed, apc's needs to be faster when driving up hills.

[BallSabre 1]

It needs a dire speed boost when going up hills. litteraly it drives up a small non steep hill almost as fast as it travels on water

Indeed, apc's needs to be faster when driving up hills.

I think this has less to do with the vehicles themselves and more with how this game assigns ground resistance to vehicle speeds as a whole.

[instagoat 133]

http://denellandsystems.co.za/infantry_systems/LCT30.html

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3096.html

A two man turret, designed to use a specially designed 30mm cannon as described here. It´s not a CTWS, as it is currently called (That is a british weapon.). Incorrectly, the spot currently used for the optic is actually the place where the weapon appears to throw out spent cartridges in reality. Apparently offers single and fully automatic modes, not just fully automatic as modelled.

http://www.pmp.co.za/index.php?page=mediumcalibre6 uses these rounds.

I am not sure, but apparently this does not fire air burst ammunition. The 40mm CTWS does, however, and if BI elects to use that weapons system on the Marshall, I´d rather like to see that ammo type, since it is General Purpose and not specialised ammunition.

At any rate, the turret as described in the above website offers observation devices for both gunner and COMMANDER. The Vehicle should be provided with a Commander, and give the Commander his observation sight. This is especially inconsistent when considering that the Strider -does- have a Commander. Why should the equivalent of the OFP .50 cal Jeep get a Commander with a specialized sight, while the Infantry's most important direct support vehicle will not get one?

Also pls add working Laser Rangefinders, BI, the click to win system (as it now turns out to be) is not fun anymore.

[runekn 3]

Nice finds InstaGoat

[da12thMonkey 1943]

It´s not a CTWS, as it is currently called (That is a british weapon.).

It's 50/50 French/British if you're being specific ;)

I am not sure, but apparently this does not fire air burst ammunition. The 40mm CTWS does, however, and if BI elects to use that weapons system on the Marshall, I´d rather like to see that ammo type, since it is General Purpose and not specialised ammunition.

Depends. CTA produce a point-detonation only version of the high explosive General Purpose Round (GPR-PD-T) for more regular applications than its air-bursting cousin (GPR-AB-T). The programmable rounds are more expensive and the ability to make them air-burst isn't necessary for most applications besides engaging emplaced infantry, so in all likelihood a vehicle with CTWS will apply a mix of GPR-PD-T and APFSDS against vehicles and exposed infantry targets and carry comparatively few GPR-AB-T rounds for special applications that benefit from the ability to AB.

Can't remember what has been suggested for the typical ammunition load for the Warriors we in the UK will be fitting with CTWS, but IIRC the feed system has a main carousel with a mixture of ammunition which will allow for continuous feed of one type of ammunition at a time and when you select another type of ammunition it can rotate forward/backwards through the carousel to get to the start of the other type's feed in under 3 seconds. IIRC there is also a small "ready-rack" that will allow a handful of pre-selected rounds to be inserted into the breach and interrupt the continuous carousel feed if a round for a different purpose, is needed instantly. I have a feeling that a mix of APFSDS and GPR-PD-T will form the main carousel, where a handful of GPR-AB-T will be on the ready-rack.

Reducing the cost of ammunition for the CTWS has been a desirable objective in recent years: During a spending review the MoD and Govt conducted a couple of years ago there was an initial call for the Army to cancel one of the two CTWS-armed vehicle projects we have running (Warrior CSP and FRES Scout SV). Reducing the cost of ammunition by having a larger fleet of vehicles utilising the CT40 ammunition was one major argument in favour of keeping both vehicle programs alive, and the argument eventually won out due to the through-life cost savings on ammunition would have on the vehicle fleet. I imagine encouraging the application of GPR-PD-T over GPR-AB-T in these vehicles will also be applied to save costs.

Edited July 3, 2013 by da12thMonkey

[Wolfstriked 11]

http://denellandsystems.co.za/infantry_systems/LCT30.html

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3096.html

A two man turret, designed to use a specially designed 30mm cannon as described here. It´s not a CTWS, as it is currently called (That is a british weapon.). Incorrectly, the spot currently used for the optic is actually the place where the weapon appears to throw out spent cartridges in reality. Apparently offers single and fully automatic modes, not just fully automatic as modelled.

http://www.pmp.co.za/index.php?page=mediumcalibre6 uses these rounds.

I am not sure, but apparently this does not fire air burst ammunition. The 40mm CTWS does, however, and if BI elects to use that weapons system on the Marshall, I´d rather like to see that ammo type, since it is General Purpose and not specialised ammunition.

At any rate, the turret as described in the above website offers observation devices for both gunner and COMMANDER. The Vehicle should be provided with a Commander, and give the Commander his observation sight. This is especially inconsistent when considering that the Strider -does- have a Commander. Why should the equivalent of the OFP .50 cal Jeep get a Commander with a specialized sight, while the Infantry's most important direct support vehicle will not get one?

Also pls add working Laser Rangefinders, BI, the click to win system (as it now turns out to be) is not fun anymore.

I also agree great stuff InstaGoat!Just a question I have is what you mean by the laser range finders being click and win.Aren't they super easy to use?

[runekn 3]

Updated first post with third thing. Finally remembered it.

[CaptainObvious 95]

And last, why does the exhaust hole thingy only work on the right side? Is it the same with Patria?

Yes, it's like that IRL.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

I also agree great stuff InstaGoat!Just a question I have is what you mean by the laser range finders being click and win.Aren't they super easy to use?

I think the problem with rangefinders at the moment is that they're continuously ranging, which makes it a bit too easy to use. It's very easy to tell when you've incorrectly lased a target and compensate for that mistake because you can see how the distance relates to measurements on other nearby objects very quickly by simply waving the cursor around a bit in the general location of your target and see how well that matches up with the measurement on your target. It falls somewhere between a laser rangefinder and LIDAR.

The proper implementation of rangefinders where you take a single, discrete measurements is a bit more immersive I think. There are consequences for not lasing the target properly first time: It slows down how quickly you can accurately engage a target if you fuck up the range estimation, and you're only really sure that you've measured the correct range when those rounds land on target. Up until that point it's about having experience and confidence in your abilities as a virtual commander/gunner to know whether that reading you just took is correct, or whether to try and lase the target again and get a second reading, and that the next shot that uses that calculation wont be a waste of ammunition and more importantly time. Plus the cooldown time before you can take the next measurement, builds tension.

There are numerous reasons why laser rangefinders don't lase constantly on real life target locating systems. Principal among them is that it makes it very easy for enemies to locate the source of the laser radiation (you), with laser warning receivers. The other is power consumption - particularly on hand-held ones, as they eat batteries like there's no tomorrow.

[jesperolsson11 10]

Hey SaMatra, I was login in tonight and find myself that I have been banned. I would really like to know why I have been banned and want to know how to be unbanned! Because you guys have done a great job with the servers and its the servers I play the most! I really enjoy them!

[metalcraze 290]

Why should the equivalent of the OFP .50 cal Jeep get a Commander with a specialized sight, while the Infantry's most important direct support vehicle will not get one?

Because "the nature balances itself". Or "we are trying to make AI on par with the player". Or whatever other excuse (that doesn't make any sense) BIS will come up with for bs balancing. It's quite clear now that they are aiming for the casual deathmatch player and we are just here along for the ride.

[Wolfstriked 11]

I think the problem with rangefinders at the moment is that they're continuously ranging, which makes it a bit too easy to use. It's very easy to tell when you've incorrectly lased a target and compensate for that mistake because you can see how the distance relates to measurements on other nearby objects very quickly by simply waving the cursor around a bit in the general location of your target and see how well that matches up with the measurement on your target. It falls somewhere between a laser rangefinder and LIDAR.

The proper implementation of rangefinders where you take a single, discrete measurements is a bit more immersive I think. There are consequences for not lasing the target properly first time: It slows down how quickly you can accurately engage a target if you fuck up the range estimation, and you're only really sure that you've measured the correct range when those rounds land on target. Up until that point it's about having experience and confidence in your abilities as a virtual commander/gunner to know whether that reading you just took is correct, or whether to try and lase the target again and get a second reading, and that the next shot that uses that calculation wont be a waste of ammunition and more importantly time. Plus the cooldown time before you can take the next measurement, builds tension.

There are numerous reasons why laser rangefinders don't lase constantly on real life target locating systems. Principal among them is that it makes it very easy for enemies to locate the source of the laser radiation (you), with laser warning receivers. The other is power consumption - particularly on hand-held ones, as they eat batteries like there's no tomorrow.

Ahhh I did not know they were not on all the time.But what about vehicles that have fire control systems that calculate on the fly.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Ahhh I did not know they were not on all the time.But what about vehicles that have fire control systems that calculate on the fly.

Most FCS systems simultaneously measure the inputs made by the gunner to track their target in their gunsight during the moments before the laser starts measuring the range. This is either done by measuring the physical movement of the turret or just the movement of the digital reticle and sight-heads that that the gunner is using to look at the target - it sort of depends on the vehicle the FCS belongs to.

Once the range is calculated, the movements that were needed to keep the gunsight on target during the tracking phase are extrapolated to work out the speed and direction of the target. If the turret is completely powered and stabilised the FCS will usually then be able to automatically lay the gun at an azimuth and elevation that will allow a round to strike the position where the target has been predicted to be in the time interval it will take for the round to reach that position. Only one range measurement needs to be made; the rest is based on well known equations of dynamics and knowledge of the weapon system's ballistics. Good old fashioned Physics! :)

If the turret isn't capable of auto-laying the gun the FCS will normally just move the gunner's reticle to indicate the amount of elevation and lead adjustment they need to make to hit the target. The gunner then has to manually lay the gun until the calculated reticle position is covering the target and begin firing.

Often the FCS can also account for the speed, direction and incline that the gunner's vehicle is moving in relative to the target as well - based on information from an inertial navigation system on board the vehicle, using laser ring gyros.

Constant lasing is only really applied for 'beam-riding' guided projectiles like LGBs and SACLOS missiles - it's wasted on ballistic projectiles that can't respond to updated targeting information.

Edited July 4, 2013 by da12thMonkey