Tanks tanks tanks...PROBLEMS!

[St. Jimmy 272]

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

Thanks

Check "Lock or zoom" from the controls settings if it has been changed. It's really lock or target and zoom has nothing to do with it anymore.

[Hellbeard 10]

Drivers are limited to one front facing view while usually there should be 3 and also cameras for seeing in obstructed directions.

It's very limiting and detrimental as it is especially when you don't use 3rd person view.

"...driver's rear-facing camera..."

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

[De_little_Bubi 1]

This is how tanks changed during 12 years development of arma and a story time difference of 50 years (OFP:CWC 1985 -> A3 2035): http://83clan.com/armaMbt/index.html

it's only concidering crews and their interfaces - not the damage model nor driving physics.

[Bouben 3]

Physics of tanks and their pathfinding need serious improvement. Tanks are sliding around like in OFP days and look embarasing in action. You can't feel their mass. They also accelerate instantly. I also hate their fast aiming turrets. Too fast and precise against infantry IMO.

[Hellbeard 10]

This is how tanks changed during 12 years development of arma and a story time difference of 50 years (OFP:CWC 1985 -> A3 2035): http://83clan.com/armaMbt/index.html

it's only concidering crews and their interfaces - not the damage model nor driving physics.

Nice! I wish there were interiors...

[Hellbeard 10]

Oh hai, just had a short spell in the t-100.

No co-axial.

How? Who?

WHAT?

Really? No co-axial?

Apropo our earlier discussion, it took two hundred shots to destroy a BTR (give or take).

Srsly, BI. Srsly you guys. Put a co-axial in that thing. I don't believe there's a single tank from World War 2 and onwards that did not have a co-axial machinegun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_battle_tank#Weaponry

"...As secondary weapons, an MBT usually uses between two and four machine guns to engage infantry and light vehicles..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_mount#Coaxial

"...Nearly all main battle tanks and most infantry fighting vehicles have a coaxial machine gun mounted to fire along a parallel axis to the main gun."

So, to recap, put a coaxial in the Russian tank and a commander's machinegun or CRWS in the Israeli tank and we'll take it from there.

Oh, and dial up the effectiveness of all tank rounds by 2 million. Give or take.

Thanks.

And interiors.

Edit: do they even read this? To qualify myself I'd like to point out that I have 3 years of duty in the Armored Corps in a combat role and an additional 12 years in reserve duty in the same capacity.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Hellbeard

[RushHour 11]

Tank damage is really the game rolling a dice and whatever number shows up, that´s how many hits it will take.

Sometimes you get "lucky" and it rolls two dices and adds the numbers together.

[aus_twisted 0]

At least in OFP tanks actually drove around the map properly unless there was possibly a bridge involved. OFP CTI worked really good and the AI knew how to navigate around the base walls as long as you gave them enough room, ever since ArmA1 something changed and the AI could not navigate around things properly :(

Edited September 9, 2013 by AUS_Twisted

[Azzur33 1]

Problems?

If the tank doesn't blow from single hit like in A2, it doesn't mean that "cannon is underpowered" or "armor is too high".

It can be disabled with one good hit. Or it can survive multiple bad hits.

Hit the tracks, and tank crew jumps out and flees, hit from behind, and it disables the engine totally. Hit the turret, and it cant shoot back.

In AA/A2 tank battles were boring and over in seconds. This is so much better now.

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

It indicates nothing. You can blow up L-159 with one sabot. It depends where you hit.

Same goes with the other armored or un-armored vehicles.

[blackjacktom 10]

Problems?

It indicates nothing. You can blow up L-159 with one sabot. It depends where you hit.

Same goes with the other armored or un-armored vehicles.

I can confirm this having just been shot down mid flight by a t-100 :).

[RushHour 11]

It indicates nothing. You can blow up L-159 with one sabot. It depends where you hit.

Last time i checked planes were fragile yet strong (not in the sense of taking a sabot)

It should not matter where you hit a plane, the thing should blow up because it´s just kevlar, aluminium and one or two tanks of jet fuel for those lovely fireworks.

[byku 13]

Against lightly armored or flying targets use HEAT, works flawlessly :P.

[Azzur33 1]

Last time i checked planes were fragile yet strong (not in the sense of taking a sabot)

It should not matter where you hit a plane, the thing should blow up because it´s just kevlar, aluminium and one or two tanks of jet fuel for those lovely fireworks.

If you hit somewhere around that jet fuel with sabot, it does explode.

Only when the plane is sideways and you hit somewhere in the tail area, or around the cockpit it doesn't explode from the first hit. Sideways cockpit hit kills the pilot, tail hit damages the engine.

---------- Post added at 15:37 ---------- Previous post was at 15:33 ----------

Against lightly armored or flying targets use HEAT, works flawlessly :P.

Yeah. That's too much for a plane to survive.

[PantherAl 11]

*snippage*

In AA/A2 tank battles were boring and over in seconds. This is so much better now.

Well, to be fair, speaking from first hand experience;

In RL tank battles are terrifying and over in seconds.

So yes, while I will agree that one hit does not always equal one kill - especially in regards to something overarmoured as a Merk - one hit should kill any Sov/Rus design no problem. They have always traded armour protection for small size and a little better speed. Not always a bad trade off, for you still have to hit that fast moving small target, which until the late 90's wasn't the easiest thing in the world. Still not simple mind, but modern FCS's are getting pretty darn close to magical in the ability to hit targets on the move.

[Azzur33 1]

Well, to be fair, speaking from first hand experience;

In RL tank battles are terrifying and over in seconds.

So yes, while I will agree that one hit does not always equal one kill - especially in regards to something overarmoured as a Merk - one hit should kill any Sov/Rus design no problem.

I tested that with 24+24 tank battle. In couple of minutes, about half of the "red" tanks were in flames, none of the "blue" ones. Still lot of them with destroyed engines or tracks.

In A2, it would take 15 seconds and 3/4 of all tanks in flames.

I prefer the first one.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Azzur33

[jgbtl292 0]

120mm or 135mm has nothing to do with the power of the under caliber ke penetrator ! is only a different in the bigger HE rounds. a 5kg ke arrow is a 5kg ke arrow ;)

[Hellbeard 10]

I tested that with 24+24 tank battle. In couple of minutes, about half of the "red" tanks were in flames, none of the "blue" ones. Still lot of them with destroyed engines or tracks.

In A2, it would take 15 seconds and 3/4 of all tanks in flames.

I prefer the first one.

Tank against tank warfare isn't a slugging match.

The first side to make the hit wins the fight.

It's a test of skill and tactics not twitch aiming or pure speed.

With the correct ammo selected, and the aim true, the penetration is binary. It either goes through the first time, or it can't get through.

I prefer the one that has anything to do with tanks, that's the latter.

With a bigger barrel diameter one can supposedly provide more muzzle velocity, which makes a big difference for the penetrator. You will use the heaviest one that's ballistically viable because those things are made from very dense metals. The heavier, the faster the better the round works. So 120 and 135mm has an immense difference. It's like saying the KE for 105mm and 120mm are the same. They're not. The 120mm is several orders of magnitude more powerful because it can shoot faster and heavier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator#Modern_design

"...Typical velocities of APFSDS rounds vary between manufacturers and muzzle length/types"

[killerwhale 1]

Why do you guys want something to play anyway, you are grown ups.

[Hellbeard 10]

If you mean by age, I can tell you that as a grown up playing is still fun and important as it ever has been. Playing is the foundation from which human civilization springs.

If you mean we're surly, there might be some truth to that. Maybe it's the nature of internet "discussion" that there's no nuance or intonation and everything is a serious wall of bricks. Except for :)

I just want the tanks to be closer to a simulation than to a "game" because simulation games are more fun for me. If I wanted a games-game there's an overabundance of those, but for combined warfare simulative games there's only ARMA (which we all, or most of us, love). I'm a tank crewman by nature and prefer them or other combat vehicles when playing ARMA. If it doesn't achieve some degree of authenticity in vanilla, I know some mods will come along to improve it but that would mean I wouldn't get to play as much because it would be more scarce.

As an aside, I went and checked a source which confirmed there's a significant difference between 105mm and 120mm APFSDS. However, because of different barrel, ammo, and propellant configurations there might be little difference with different caliber weaponry(for instance eastern vs western designs) though as a rule bigger diameter of barrel means higher energy. Higher energy, for KE, is more penetration.

---------- Post added at 20:35 ---------- Previous post was at 18:56 ----------

I ran a test, a Merkava 4 and a t-100 vs. 8 BTR-Ks at 500-600meters. All the BTRs were side presented, and shot in the center mass(not including tracks and CRWS).

First test was one shot of APFSDS 120mm(Merk4). Results were 5 BTRs with no damage at all, 2 BTRs had red engine and orange turret and one had red engine, orange gun and red turret.

Then a single 120mm HE, center mass - no damage at all across the board (eight out of eight).

Second is the 125mm of the t-100. For one shot center APFSDS 5 BTRs had no damage, one had engine red and two had engine, gun and turret red.

For one shot center 125mm HE there was no damage whatsoever.

Then I counted shots till destruction(explosion) waiting a few seconds between shots to allow for cook off.

120mm APFSDS center mass, till explosion/destruction: 7 needed 3 shots, one needed 2 shots. (I suspect there's some statistics roll of the die until 3 shots are counted and then it explodes no matter what).

120mm HE center mass, till explosion/destruction - two needed six and that was all the ammo there is.

125mm APFSDS center mass, till explosion:3 needed 4(!), one needed a whopping 8 and one soaked up the remaining 9 and did not explode.

125mm HE - 2 needed six and that's all there is.

I then put down some infantry and tried to shoot at them with the HE rounds, I guess if it doesn't have a hollow charge or some other AT capability it's suited well against infantry right? No. If you don't hit the guy in the face the HE can explode all day at their feet, behind them, infront of them - nothing.

EDIT: in case anybody cares the results should have been 1 shot, with either ammo = kill. This is an APC. A soft, crinkly, thin walled little jobby that's meant to protect its occupants from shrapnel and small arms up to, say 7.62 steel core. The HE ammo is just useless. Why did future army dudes decide not to have HEAT or HEDP or at least some kind of fragmentation jacket for the damn thing, it can't kill infantry and it can't kill armor. What's it for? Why don't they put APAM instead? Though it really should have HEAT and or HEDP as well as APAM.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Hellbeard

[Azzur33 1]

Tank against tank warfare isn't a slugging match.

The first side to make the hit wins the fight.

I prefer the one that has anything to do with tanks, that's the latter.

The difference between A3 and A2 was less exploded tanks.

Still most if not all tanks were damaged or/and abandoned in A3.

Do you really prefer A2 style? Sabot to the tracks - KABOOM!

[Hellbeard 10]

The difference between A3 and A2 was less exploded tanks.

Still most if not all tanks were damaged or/and abandoned in A3.

Do you really prefer A2 style? Sabot to the tracks - KABOOM!

Come on. Are those the only options there are? Tanks can be either worthless airsoft plonkers or everything-explodes-all-the-time?

[pharoah 65]

Anyone had any issues with the M4 Scorcher? Squaddie online last night couldn't get the rounds to land on target (using the artillery computer) primarily because the main gun wouldn't elevate!! Anyone else had this problem or know of a fix?

[Azzur33 1]

Come on. Are those the only options there are? Tanks can be either worthless airsoft plonkers or everything-explodes-all-the-time?

Oh please. Now the tanks are "worthless airsoft plonkers".

Now one sabot is enough to eliminate a main battle tank without blowing it up right away.

That is airsoft then.

What do you want? Give BIS some info How it should be done.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Azzur33

[PantherAl 11]

120mm or 135mm has nothing to do with the power of the under caliber ke penetrator ! is only a different in the bigger HE rounds. a 5kg ke arrow is a 5kg ke arrow ;)

It has everything to do with penetrative capability. Yes, a long rod penetrator, weighing 5kg - which they don't, they are a lot heavier - is still the same in theory - though I would think a 135's LRP would be heavier. I do know for a fact the one that was ginned up for the 140 program was. However, a 135mm round, has in theory, much more propellant pushing the round downrange. Mass times Velocity equals Energy. More Energy, more punch. More Mass, more punch. More of both? Just look at the 105 vs 120. Massive difference.

[KingOchaos 10]

Anyone had any issues with the M4 Scorcher? Squaddie online last night couldn't get the rounds to land on target (using the artillery computer) primarily because the main gun wouldn't elevate!! Anyone else had this problem or know of a fix?

You use the page up and page down key to change elevation in the spgs.