Tanks tanks tanks...PROBLEMS!

[D_wolf 1]

why the hell do i need to manually zero the sights like in the 1930's? Can't the ballistics computer get the range transmitted to it from the rangefinder?

^this

[bakimaster91 16]

zGuba, maybe You know if DEV`s thought about implementing some better Fire Control Systems for 2035 tanks, apcs and stuff?? And eliminating radars from these....

I don`t see a point in current version of FCS as it depends on the "radar" and if the target is beyond any object it loses track of it and its impossible to follow a target, shoot etc. Current system has too many flaws and it can`t auto elevate the coax machine gun...Don`t know why actually...

[Smurf 12]

^this

What is the fun on that? It's already too easy to score a hit.

[fujix 11]

I parked a Slammer and a T100 in front of each other yesterday in the editor and let them duke it out. Range between them was about 100m on Stratis airfield. Took like 5-6 shots before one got destroyed. Are they supposed to be this resilient?

[maturin 12]

From the looks of it, in 2035 the armor has gotten much better but the AP ammo remains the same.

[D_wolf 1]

What is the fun on that? It's already too easy to score a hit.

Well we are in 2030 after all

[trent 14]

I saw a video of someone firing 3 shells from the Slammer into an empty L-159 before it blew up. Indicates severely underpowered.

[JestersDead 2]

The new armored vehicles are VERY difficult to kill. I hit a slammer in the rear armor with 3 PCML's and 2 sabot rounds before it blew. Then I hit an MLRS launcher with 3 direct hits from the 155mm howitzer. Nothing. Seems a BIT off.

[PantherAl 11]

As a professional Tanker: one who has used live ammo on live targets, I didn't expect BI to nail it: but... I am really disapointed. The T-100, for a russian based tank, has its armour way too strong. Not to bash russian stuff; they do make some good things here and there (D30? Thing is a Legend.), but their tanks are not known for the armour protection they have. And yes, I *do* expect to see Russian tanks go boom at least half the time: The ammo is in the floor without any protection, so popped tops are actually pretty common. That said, I don't have any major issue with how the T100 looks when nailed with a KE weapon: Unless it pops its top, you don't see a lot of obvious damage. But, the HEAT round should punch at least from the side, and be pretty obvious as well as to the damage done to it regardless of where it hit.

The Merk is also, in my opinion, a touch too high on the protection scale as well. Not as bad as the T-100, after all, the Merk has a no-BS rep for being over armoured. But a side shot with KE from a 135mm class gun should have no issue punching. Maybe not the HE: it is a merk after all, but the KE should. And agian, while the HEAT shouldn't punch from the front, and probably not the side (Flukes happen) it agian should be pretty obvious that its been kissed. Although, HE will mob-kill the Merk.

As to the SPGs and SPAAGs, man oh man, are they way way over armoured. Especially the turrets. You can make the argument that the hulls are the same, but then what I said earlier applies to them. But the turrets? They might, in the real, be able to stop a fifty. But thats it. Tops. And you punch it with anything that goes boom or generates major heat - like a KE round, you will get secondaries.

As to the FCS.

If I wasn't bald, I'd be pulling my hair out. Its harder to hit in game than in the real. How it works in the real, you place the red dot on target. Hit the laze button. The tube elevates automaticly to take into acount the range. Lead your target - and not by a lot since windage and weather is also done for you automaticly, make sure the dot is where it needs to be, and pull the trigger on the caddies. Pop goes the tank. The way it is now reminds me a lot about the old 60's, where a lot of info was hand put in the system, or eyeballed at the sight.

Agian, my two cents.

[progamer 14]

The new armored vehicles are VERY difficult to kill. I hit a slammer in the rear armor with 3 PCML's and 2 sabot rounds before it blew. Then I hit an MLRS launcher with 3 direct hits from the 155mm howitzer. Nothing. Seems a BIT off.

The panther and the Merkava tanks (blufors armor) are based off of real life vehicles which are quite heavily armored and are even called too armored at times! :)

[PantherAl 11]

But not that over armoured! :) Not up the rear. The rear armour should be proof agianst MG fire, but cannon fire or rockets? No problems.

[mistyronin 1181]

But not that over armoured! :) Not up the rear. The rear armour should be proof agianst MG fire, but cannon fire or rockets? No problems.

We are talking about 2035, superduper armor :rolleyes:

I'd like them to be as the real ones, but I will understand if BI takes a artistic license.

[maturin 12]

but their tanks are not known for the armour protection they have.

Neither were American tanks, until the Abrams. A lot can change in 22 years.

And yes, I *do* expect to see Russian tanks go boom at least half the time: The ammo is in the floor without any protection, so popped tops are actually pretty common.

This isn't unique to Russian tanks, but anyways, the T-100 model pretty clearly shows an ammo bustle mounted at the rear of the turret. They have resolved this defect in the Armaverse.

But, the HEAT round should punch at least from the side, and be pretty obvious as well as to the damage done to it regardless of where it hit.

There is no tank HEAT round in the game.

If I wasn't bald, I'd be pulling my hair out. Its harder to hit in game than in the real. How it works in the real, you place the red dot on target. Hit the laze button. The tube elevates automaticly to take into acount the range. Lead your target - and not by a lot since windage and weather is also done for you automaticly, make sure the dot is where it needs to be, and pull the trigger on the caddies. Pop goes the tank. The way it is now reminds me a lot about the old 60's, where a lot of info was hand put in the system, or eyeballed at the sight.

Hold right click on a target and the barrel will auto range your shot, calculating lead as well. But it doesn't do the former very well.

[instagoat 133]

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14019 made a ticket regarding the damage handling. Turns out shots actually overpenetrate a lot without doing damage.

There are no effects inside the vehicle from the hit aside from the bullet passing through either, apparently, so you neither get damage nor crew casualties. Also hitting the Merkava in the back of the turret kills the engine (???)

Things are -seriously- wonky with the tanks. None of the guns shoot point of aim, and the blast effects from the gun firing are bad too. This needs an overhaul BI, I am slowly beginning to get nervous....

[maturin 12]

The panther and the Merkava tanks (blufors armor) are based off of real life vehicles which are quite heavily armored and are even called too armored at times! :)

The Merkava has shit rear armor that has been penetrated by 12.7mm in the past. All these vehicles are too resistant over their rear and side arcs.

[mistyronin 1181]

I am slowly beginning to get nervous....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Keep-calm-and-carry-on-scan.jpg (113 kB)

Sorry, I couldn't resist :D

I agree, something is not fine enough with the hitpoints, but remember we are still in the beta, and anyway it would take some time until they correct everything, so just try to be patient.

[PantherAl 11]

But not by that much. Armour is weight. When one sides tanks come in 30 tonnes lighter, it isn't because the paint is lighter. There is an advantage to lower weights: Sov/Russian tanks are quick, small, and they are agile. But armoured well? Not really. As to HEAT; HE-T is what I meant, but thats a round that doesn't exist at least for the 120. You pretty much have KE rounds, HEAT, MPAT (This is what I think they mean by HE-T since this is the closest, but even then its a shaped charge), Cannister, and Missile. I am actually rather shocked not to see the last: This is one area the Russians are in the clear and obvious lead. I'm not totally sold on that its a good idea mind, but they have proven to be usefull at longer ranges. And the Merk's do have the LAHAT beam rider missile as well, so no reason the M2 in the game shouldn't have it. But the T100's bustle isn't large enough to hold more than a handfull of fixed rounds - and even then, they would have to be stored sideways. They might store the actuall round in the bustle, but the propellent is still in the floor - even the Black Eagle didn't get away from this. Thats the big downer to Russian Tank Guns: They are not fixed rounds. A seperate Shell, and then Propellent. The 120 Fixed round is really pushing the limit as to how large rounds can get: You are looking at 60 pounds, give or take depending on the exact round, and a metre in length. Which for handling reasons, you really can't get much larger. Which a 135mm or the 140 that has been played with here in the west, would have to be.

Besides, M2 shouldn't be the designation, should be something like M-30 or something by the mid thirties. M2 is taken by the Brad. We did learn something from WW2 after all. :)

And to the right click. Did not see that, thanks! :)

---------- Post added at 22:09 ---------- Previous post was at 22:06 ----------

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14019 made a ticket regarding the damage handling. Turns out shots actually overpenetrate a lot without doing damage.

There are no effects inside the vehicle from the hit aside from the bullet passing through either, apparently, so you neither get damage nor crew casualties. Also hitting the Merkava in the back of the turret kills the engine (???)

Things are -seriously- wonky with the tanks. None of the guns shoot point of aim, and the blast effects from the gun firing are bad too. This needs an overhaul BI, I am slowly beginning to get nervous....

Yeah - A hit in the rear in the Merk is actually a lot worse than hitting any other tank in the same place; those will be a mob kill, with a merk, the shot goes right into the Turret Basket - and depending on if the back is fitted with Ammo as it usually is, results in a pretty good sized bang.

Edited September 5, 2013 by PantherAl

[pipin78 10]

Tanks need a lot of work in my opinion..

just a few quirks that I've found:

-the damage texture is too subtle.. it's hard to even notice that is there from close ispection! You have no feedback if you damaged the enemy tank at range..

-when engine is damaged (red) there is no visual feedback like darker exaust (as in arma2) or similar . I do not see a significant decrease in performance either! Can still do 50Km/h with a red engine!!

-Again, no feedback on destroyed tracks (in arma 2 at least they become black!) When the vehicle is immobilized and you order to move the tracks still rotate while the tanks stands still.. (ugh!!)

-When the tank explodes the turret simply disappears.. XD

-Both tanks are full submersible at low deeps.. they can move aroud at will with 1m of water over the turret.. if you stick out the tip you can even fire the main gun!! (make a great ambush!!)

-Error in the description of the T100.. is supposed to have an unmanned turret but ingame has a manned one.. the ingame gun label is also wrong (says 120mm instead of 135..)

-T100 cannot reverse.. it turns inplace when ordered to do so from the commander station..

-This may be me but the T100 looks like a plastic toy.. too polished texture.. make it more rugged!!

[Hud Dorph 22]

Hmm getting shot by handguns while inside tanks - remember that from early arma2 also....BIS look back in your files :)

[343rdBadger 0]

What ALSO needs to be taken into account is the rounds will also change in 20 years...not just the armor

[ric 1]

What ALSO needs to be taken into account is the rounds will also change in 20 years...not just the armor

there may not be rounds ....;) not sure if this is true or not

By July 2012, details began to emerge of considerations for developing technologies for the new design. One possibility is the replacement of the traditional main gun with a laser cannon or an electromagnetic pulse cannon. Other improvements could include a hybrid-electric engine and a reduced crew of two. The goals of the new tank are to make it faster, better protected, more interoperable and lethal than the current Merkava. The IDF is hoping for it to be operational by 2020.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava

[PantherAl 11]

OK: took a closer look at the T100 - yep. The bustle is large enough, so I agree now: No PopTops. :)

[sgt_Savage2003 10]

Yes the tanks need some work, but lets not forget that you can turn down the health of anything. So if you want one shot AP kills then there you go. As with the models I think they are the best I have seen in a long time. Yes they are not what we want but DEAL WITH IT or just make your own mod. I would have liked to seen a scud launcher for OpFOR but maybe in DLC. But back to the MB tanks, The merkava 4 aka main battle tank for Blfor needs to have a Mg for the commander and not the over powered one that is in game. It needs to be a .50 cal with just irons sights and the coaxial is a 30 cal maug/B240 not the week 6.5mm.

[jagdtiger74 10]

I tried the Merk yesterday and found a couple of things strange, perhaps someone can confirm

- the laser seems to be slightly under the red dot, so you aim at something and the round impacts in front of the target

- the tracers of the onboard MG are close to invisible, was trying to shoot down a LittleBird and couldnt even see where the rounds where going.

- couldnt lock a target with right mouse button, do i need to change something in the keybindings?

Thanks

[JestersDead 2]

Yes they are not what we want but DEAL WITH IT or just make your own mod.

I really don't understand this mentality that I constantly see on these forums. The tanks are obviously broken. Why should I have to develop a mod to get basic functionality out of something that's in the vanilla game? I'm not a programmer, and I couldn't create a mod if my life depended on it. What I'd like to see is at least SOMEWHAT accurate armor modeling. Rear armor hits should be devastating. No tank should be able to take 3 PCML's to the rear armor and shrug it off. You can't use the "future magic" argument either. Tanks have been around for over 100 years, and tanks that are in service right now can be destroyed by side or rear hits from RPG's.

The other problem, as others have mentioned, is that you have practically no visual indication that the tank has been damaged. I can pump shells into the track all day long, but they'll still look 100% functional until the thing explodes. The only visual cue you get is after a turrret hit, the gun tube will droop down. I don't want to see every single tank that's killed erupt in a violent explosion, but there needs to be some cue that you've at least damaged it.

I'm hoping that this is something that's in the works already, but as close as we are to release date... let's just say I'm not holding my breath.