Tanks are... Kinda weak...

[Crash 10]

Well, I wouldn't bother looking for realism on the current tanks. They all appear to be a Frankenstein mish-mash of different parts welded together.

[progamer 14]

Well, I wouldn't bother looking for realism on the current tanks. They all appear to be a Frankenstein mish-mash of different parts welded together.

They are still WIP like the rest of the game. The developers plan to support and add to the game for 5 years at least. Just like after the releas of arma 2 when people said it wasn't realistic, down the line the game will get better and more realistic. You can help by creating and upvoting tickets on the feedback tracker.

[mistyronin 1181]

Well, I wouldn't bother looking for realism on the current tanks. They all appear to be a Frankenstein mish-mash of different parts welded together.

What? Check this images from real life:

Merkava

T95

[Crash 10]

Well, not exactly the Merkava, and yes, I know of the T-95 ( which I heard was horribly expensive ), but the "other" vehicles. Really, they could have done a better job. I know there's already a thread about this, so I'll leave it at that.

[progamer 14]

Well, not exactly the Merkava, and yes, I know of the T-95 ( which I heard was horribly expensive ), but the "other" vehicles. Really, they could have done a better job. I know there's already a thread about this, so I'll leave it at that.

At times it appears the vehicles have problems due to lack of time or resources. hopefully down the line they are fixed.

[JamesSaga 1]

Just thought I'd share this.

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/what-it-looks-like-to-get-hit-in-the-face-with-a-tank-s-1455453439

[Damian90 697]

What? Check this images from real life:

Merkava

T95

The vehicle on second photo os not T-95 or to be correct, Object 195 as this is GRAU designation code for prototype, it was never officiallyclassified as T-95. Photo shows other abandoned project Object 640.

Both vehicles were designed by different design bureaus.

Object 195 - UKBTM, Nizhny Tagil

Object 640 - KBTM, Omsk

This is a leaked photo of one of several prototypes of the real Object 195/T-95.

US M1? I am talking of the "Israeli Merkava Mk4", research it and you will see the coaxil is 12.7 and the commander gun is 7.62mm. I am using real facts, not justt saying i think it would use a 50 cal. Is not an American made tank. The loader would likely have access to an additional machine gun.

"The Merkava is equipped with a turret 12.7 mm caliber coaxial machine gun which enables the crew to lay down fairly heavy cover fire without the use of the main gun, which is relatively ineffective against individual enemy combatants. Like the new remote-operated weapon station, the coaxial machine-gun is fired from inside the tank without exposing the crew to small-arms fire and snipers." http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4761.html

"Merkava 4 LIC: The Merkava is equipped with a turret 12.7 mm caliber coaxial machine gun which enables the crew to lay down fairly heavy cover fire without the use of the main gun, which is relatively ineffective against individual enemy combatants. The most sensitive areas of a tank, its optics, exhaust ports and ventilators, are all protected by a newly-developed high-strength metal mesh. Rubber whip pole-markers with LED tips and a driver's rear-facing camera have been installed to improve navigation and maneuverability in an urban environment by day or by night."

"120 mm rifled gun, three 7,62 mm machine gun, one 12,7 mm machine gun, one mortar 60 mm, 12 smoke discharger."

http://www.armyrecognition.com/israe..._identifi.html

This is a lot of BS or misunderstanding of reality.

First, the Merkava Mk4 (all variants A, B and M) use a 120mm smoothbore gun the MG253. Second is that basic coaxial machine gun is 7,62mm FN MAG + a commander FN MAG on skid mount. There is however capability to install second 12,7mm coax over the gun mantled.

Another thing is that Merkava Mk4 do not have loader hatch, so loader can't use any sort of machine gun on his own. Only command variants of Merkava Mk4 have armor module removed and eplaced with loaders hatch.

Here you have a photo of Merkava Mk4A with additional 12,7mm coax mounted over gun mantlet. You can also see a cut out in armor for internal 7,62mm coax.

So before you start to write what you think, double check reality.

And a small history lesson. Initially Israelis used this second 12,7mm coax, just as a training tool, so crews can perform gunnery using 12,7mm as a 120mm gun ersatz, afterall 12,7mm ammo is cheaper than 105/120mm one. But some time later, someone realized that it might be usefull as a second coax to engage targets too hard for 7,62mm coax, and not worth 105mm or 120mm round.

After 2003 OIF, Americans also learned that such 12,7mm coax connected to M1 tank FCS could be usefull, and hey developed the CS/AMM (Counter Sniper/Anti Material Mount) which is bolted to the main gun mantled and is connected to vehicle FCS.

So in practice, both American and Israeli tanks today, can be equipped with two coaxial machine guns. It improves flexibility of vehicles firepower.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Damian90

[progamer 14]

The vehicle on second photo os not T-95 or to be correct, Object 195 as this is GRAU designation code for prototype, it was never officiallyclassified as T-95. Photo shows other abandoned project Object 640.

Both vehicles were designed by different design bureaus.

Object 195 - UKBTM, Nizhny Tagil

Object 640 - KBTM, Omsk

http://www.fyjs.cn/bbs/attachments/Mon_1103/26_175654_e9c0354a3f8c0c8.jpg?33

This is a leaked photo of one of several prototypes of the real Object 195/T-95.

This is a lot of BS or misunderstanding of reality.

First, the Merkava Mk4 (all variants A, B and M) use a 120mm smoothbore gun the MG253. Second is that basic coaxial machine gun is 7,62mm FN MAG + a commander FN MAG on skid mount. There is however capability to install second 12,7mm coax over the gun mantled.

Another thing is that Merkava Mk4 do not have loader hatch, so loader can't use any sort of machine gun on his own. Only command variants of Merkava Mk4 have armor module removed and eplaced with loaders hatch.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/z_merkava_2.jpg

Here you have a photo of Merkava Mk4A with additional 12,7mm coax mounted over gun mantlet. You can also see a cut out in armor for internal 7,62mm coax.

So before you start to write what you think, double check reality.

And a small history lesson. Initially Israelis used this second 12,7mm coax, just as a training tool, so crews can perform gunnery using 12,7mm as a 120mm gun ersatz, afterall 12,7mm ammo is cheaper than 105/120mm one. But some time later, someone realized that it might be usefull as a second coax to engage targets too hard for 7,62mm coax, and not worth 105mm or 120mm round.

After 2003 OIF, Americans also learned that such 12,7mm coax connected to M1 tank FCS could be usefull, and hey developed the CS/AMM (Counter Sniper/Anti Material Mount) which is bolted to the main gun mantled and is connected to vehicle FCS.

So in practice, both American and Israeli tanks today, can be equipped with two coaxial machine guns. It improves flexibility of vehicles firepower.

I researched before. Thank s for the information. I updated the applicable ticket.

[king homer 1]

Fact is, tanks lack firepower at all ends. Instead of the standard APFSDS/HE setup, I'd like to see a proper mix of APFSDS/HEAT/HE/APERS ammunition or at least some sort of customizing within range of ammo trucks.

[Damian90 697]

Well, the problem is that in nearest future, all modern armies plan to use only 2 to 3 ammunition types in tanks. For defeating heavy armor APFSDS, for multipurpose use they will use HE ammunition with programmable fuzes, such ammunition like for example XM1069 AMP are even capable to penetrate through turret armor of older tanks (during tests it go through side turret armor which is approx 100-150mm of cast steel armor, impressive), and eventually some sort of GLATGM.

And there is really no point in using different types of ammunition, tank gun fired HEAT rounds have rather low efficency against modern armor, and APERS is no needed when you have programmable multipurpose HE.

However I agree that customizable ammo racks in tank could be usefull option + making HE a programmable round, so we can choose between point detonate, penetration/delay and airburst modes.

[king homer 1]

Well, the problem is that in nearest future, all modern armies plan to use only 2 to 3 ammunition types in tanks. For defeating heavy armor APFSDS, for multipurpose use they will use HE ammunition with programmable fuzes, such ammunition like for example XM1069 AMP are even capable to penetrate through turret armor of older tanks (during tests it go through side turret armor which is approx 100-150mm of cast steel armor, impressive), and eventually some sort of GLATGM.

And there is really no point in using different types of ammunition, tank gun fired HEAT rounds have rather low efficency against modern armor, and APERS is no needed when you have programmable multipurpose HE.

However I agree that customizable ammo racks in tank could be usefull option + making HE a programmable round, so we can choose between point detonate, penetration/delay and airburst modes.

Since this game is set in 2035 it's unpredictable what will be in use and what not. I agree, modern ammunition will make HEAT obsolete. But that's not the point here. In Arma3 I need a MP round capable of penetrating at least some armor. The HE is pretty usless - either as AT or AP round. And do I really want to waste my precious APFSDS on light- and unarmored vehicles? In combination with missing coax and commander machineguns, the role of the MBT is far away from satisfying.

[Damian90 697]

AFAIK, HE round should be enough to defeat lightly armored vehicles, their armor is just not enough to stop a big chunk of metal like this.

It is then more a problem of proper "hit" value in config, which seems to be too low, or lighter vehicles have just too strong armor.

[x3kj 1247]

They are not just weak, they also sound weak... i bet a goat could out-"roar" a Tank in Arma 3. They sound like RC tanks with those tinny fake sound emitters

[Damian90 697]

Sound weak? In reality these "tank sounds" are very different, some tanks are rather quiete vehicles, especially from longer ranges, some are damn loud.

It all depends on technical characteristics. M2A1 Slammer being modeled after Merkava Mk4 uses MTU MB883 which is a V type diesel, these diesels are not that loud, but for example flat opposed piston diesel like 6TD with it's ejection cooling system is incredibly loud. So it is not that far from reality.

It also depends on range, for example gas turbine engines are very loud from close range, from long ange, human is most likely incapable to hear them, sooner you will hear tracks clacking. And diesels are opposite, they are quieter from closer range, and better hearable from longer.

If it comes to main gun sounds, I did not noticed anything wrong with them.

Perhaps it also depends on personal configuration.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Damian90

[king homer 1]

AFAIK, HE round should be enough to defeat lightly armored vehicles, their armor is just not enough to stop a big chunk of metal like this.

It is then more a problem of proper "hit" value in config, which seems to be too low, or lighter vehicles have just too strong armor.

I agree, I'm talking about the gameplay aspect only. A change of hit values is necessary to make the HE shells more effective against light armored vehicles. Less splash damage, more direct hit damage.

[Damian90 697]

Or changing armor values for lighter vehicles. We should remember that their armor is designed mostly to stop up to 14,5mm AP rounds and eventually mine and IED blasts.

[maturin 12]

Changing their armor isn't going to do anything. What we really need is crew damage. It's very hard to predict exactly what will happen when a frag round rips a hole in the side of an APC (probably not an explosion or fire), but the inhabitants are dead, and that's what matters.

But right now tank crew will be completely unharmed if a sabot passes between their legs. No heat, no spall, no nothing that will harm them.

[Harry Canyon 10]

Yep, waiting for ACE.

[metalcraze 290]

Guys but is Merkava even finished?

Ugly low poly turret, very muddy texture, missing gunner hatch, an empty carrier for an MG that coupled with everything else makes the tank look like a quickly made placeholder for the real thing.

Not mentioning missing stuff that it has IRL.

It would be a good thing if BIS gives us a tank up to standards itself, not just damage / penetration values.

[Damian90 697]

Ugly low poly turret, very muddy texture, missing gunner hatch, an empty carrier for an MG that coupled with everything else makes the tank look like a quickly made placeholder for the real thing.

1) What gunner hatch? Did you ever seen real Merkava? Merkava do not have gunner hatch, and standard Merkava Mk4 tanks do not have even loader hatch, only a very small batch of command tanks have loader hatch. It was decision made by general Israel Tal team, to improve turret roof protection.

2) Yes the mount for second coax is there, but nowhere is said that developers need to use it, neither other things. In game Slammer is variant of Merkava Mk4M purchased and manufactured by NATO countries, nowhere is said that it needs to be 100% same as original Merkava Mk4M. Some features hypothetically could be dropped, or example Slammer have only 3 men crew, perhaps the left side turret is occupied by mechanical loading system elements. In real Merkava internal mortar is operated by loader, if there is no loader, then there is no point to have morter, and there is no space for it in the right side of turret interior where gunner and tank commander are placed.

Think about this more deeply.

No offense, but I will put it this way. I don't have a knowledge about beavers mating customs, I do not discuss then how beavers mate... you get the point?

Edited November 1, 2013 by Damian90

[progamer 14]

1) What gunner hatch? Did you ever seen real Merkava? Merkava do not have gunner hatch, and standard Merkava Mk4 tanks do not have even loader hatch, only a very small batch of command tanks have loader hatch. It was decision made by general Israel Tal team, to improve turret roof protection.

2) Yes the mount for second coax is there, but nowhere is said that developers need to use it, neither other things. In game Slammer is variant of Merkava Mk4M purchased and manufactured by NATO countries, nowhere is said that it needs to be 100% same as original Merkava Mk4M. Some features hypothetically could be dropped, or example Slammer have only 3 men crew, perhaps the left side turret is occupied by mechanical loading system elements. In real Merkava internal mortar is operated by loader, if there is no loader, then there is no point to have morter, and there is no space for it in the right side of turret interior where gunner and tank commander are placed.

Think about this more deeply.

No offense, but I will put it this way. I don't have a knowledge about beavers mating customs, I do not discuss then how beavers mate... you get the point?

So let's just leave the Merkava unfinished in the game? Or leave out parts of vehicles? This isn't BF4 or COD with imaginary vehicles.

[Damian90 697]

So let's just leave the Merkava unfinished in the game?

Who says it is unfinished on model level? And who have qualifications to say so eh?

In fact, me as a person that sacrificed a decade of his life to educate about AFV's of different kinds, who spent a lot of his life digging through proffesional literature about them and a lot of documents, not to mention other reliable sources of informations, I can say with full responsability, that on the model level, Slammer is relatively a very fine piece of work. Even compared to tank models from previous games, it is preaty obvious that quality is far greater. Compare the M1A1 or M1A2 from ArmA2 and you will see.

Not to mention that Slammer being a fictional variant of a real vehicle, can have some differences to this real vehicle, for example it might lack the second coax mounted to the main gun mantle.

And there are other vehicles that have much greater issues on their model level, be it T-100, or issue with turret copy pasting.

I would see much greater problems with Slammer on the config level or other deeper things, than textures (which are rather good). These are things which should be solved, than adding another machine gun or a mortar or something else, only because someone whish to have it.

Besides this, I am with the series from the very beggining, I remember how was OFP, ArmA, ArmA2 in their initial versions, and I must say that ArmA3 is in a far better form at it's initial release. And A3 will be improved just like it's predecessors. But the constant whining that game lacks something you wish it should be there, does not mean that developers are obligated to listen to this whining which might contradicts their vision of this product, and their ways how to further develop it. This is their very right to do so.

And there is more, we do not know how development is moving forward, we do not know what are priorities, we do not know if models are changed for future patches or if they are redesigned.

Or maybe I just have this specific age behind me (and I am not even 25 yet) and by studying and being close to the real military and arms industry, and perhaps I understand better how development process works. Game industry is not that different really, BIS developers needed to make tough decisions, which is normal during development cycle, there are higher and lower priorities, some things need to be abandoned because of variety of reasons. So just like I said, whining because tank model do not have extra machine gun, won't help, and there might be more important priorities at this point of game development. Maybe in future, there will be released patch with completely redone vehicle models, who knows? I don't, and really, there is no point in wasting time for such things.

[progamer 14]

So having differences is not having anything other than the cannon and the model being realistic? And having the to tanks be almost a copy of each others configs? It's more fun playing with realistic vehicles then vehicles that are not. Arma is realistic and the developers have in the past made vehicles more realistic due to the feedback tracker.

Some people seem to thinks its because it's an arcade game now like Battlefield or COD and things don't have to be realistic. Or people from other games saying realism isn't fun and shouldn't be a part of arma 3 like Arma 2 had. When in reality, it's just a lack of time and resources on the developers part and behind a long waiting list of things regarding the game.

[metalcraze 290]

Yes the mount for second coax is there, but nowhere is said that developers need to use it

One of the first screenshots show MG being there (the model they later reused for static MG) but OK you can keep excusing BIS laziness.

In real Merkava internal mortar is operated by loader, if there is no loader, then there is no point to have morter, and there is no space for it in the right side of turret interior where gunner and tank commander are placed.

So let them add a loader and a mortar like the real thing. What's the problem? In fact let them go further and add a dedicated thermal sight and a dedicated MG for a loader - why not? "It's teh future" after all.

Having better tanks is a bad thing am I right? Can't have BIS put an actual effort into what they do? Tanks are already a step backwards from ArmA2 (which had loaders with dedicated thermal and mg as well as commander having MG) but that's ok?

Edited November 1, 2013 by metalcraze

[Damian90 697]

So having differences is not having anything other than the cannon and the model being realistic? And having the to tanks be almost a copy of each others configs? It's more fun playing with realistic vehicles then vehicles that are not. Arma is realistic and the developers have in the past made vehicles more realistic due to the feedback tracker.

You slowly start to get the point. Models are not the issue. Extra machine guns are not the issue, the issue is config for example, and copy pasting.

Some people seem to thinks its because it's an arcade game now like Battlefield or COD and things don't have to be realistic. Or people from other games saying realism isn't fun and shouldn't be a part of arma 3 like Arma 2 had. When in reality, it's just a lack of time and resources on the developers part and behind a long waiting list of things regarding the game.

Who are these people? Me perhaps? :) Funny thing if so, because neither I play alot of games these days (no time, there is work, education etc.) neither I play CoD or Battlefield.

However if there are such people, this is their right to say and think so.

And yes, you finally start to understand, that developers have their limits, in time, resources, money, they need to make decisions, priorities for the initial release. Be patient, because with more patches, with next campaign episodes, DLC's etc. they will improve everything. Just like with ArmA2 we have years of constant development ahead of us, the problem I see however, some people lack patience.

One of the first screenshots show MG being there (the model they later reused for static MG) but OK you can keep excusing BIS laziness.

Who said they are lazy? Who said absolutely that the second variant of Slammer will not be put there later?

Oh you know what? You are so tough and smart, go and make your own game that have the same scale like ArmA, especially considering such things like time limits, money, resources.

So let them add loader and a mortar. What's the problem?

Maybe it is not that easy? Maybe game mechanics do not let to do such complex things?

Do you'r even aware of all possible limitations? How old you are?

Having better tanks is a bad thing am I right?

Who said that there are bad tanks in ArmA3? In fact there is visible significant step forward compared to previous games.

Can't have BIS put an actual effort into what they do? Let's have the game move nowhere?

Oh, right, yeah... :rolleyes:

IRL tanks are a lot more versatile in weaponry and defenses but in 2035 they took a step backwards from 2013?

And they are just like that in ArmA3. Maybe you should learn how to use a tank? ;) Actually I am certain, that you would whine just in the same way, after spending several hours playing proffesional, very realistic simulator like Steel Beasts, because hey, devs there also need to make tough decisions and priorities, for example there are no physx there, no visible crew members, no capability to operate loaders machine guns, some vehicles are not even playable. But hey, devs are lazy right?

But to be honest, I had a conversation with ZGuba some time ago, and believe me, developers are making a lot to improve things regarding vehicles. This is not that they are lazy, there is constant work on many issues, some of them however, might not be noticable by people who play, at least not on the first look.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Damian90