Tanks are... Kinda weak...

[Damian90 697]

As I said, vehicles are improved, many things will change.

[maturin 12]

At this point (1.04) about armored vehicles in Arma 3 I can only say, that to destroy "T-100" by shooting with 6.5 mm ammo at frontal armor you need (about) 17776 rounds (less than 600 magazines). In other words, with enough ammo, 30 riflemen should be enough to destroy that tank in one minute (not counting reloading time).

Less than 600 magazines...

You know that's not ever going to happen in anyone's game every, right?

Besides, 17776 bullets would eventually track and blind a tank, so who really cares?

[Rydygier 1309]

You know that's not ever going to happen in anyone's game every, right?

Sure. It is not the point. The point is fundamental principles behind tank armor simulation, that may have real gameplay impact for bigger calibers. 6,5 is of course intentionally extreme example.

so who really cares?

I really care. Otherwise I would not say anything. Just for me would be great, if mentioned numerous changes will cover also this, so old, problem. Possibility of blinding tank's optics of course would be nice too - good idea.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Rydygier

[Damian90 697]

Vehicle armor will be somewhat changed from what I know. However not all people might actually be happy with greater realism.

[laverniusregalis 10]

At this point (1.04) about armored vehicles in Arma 3 I can only say, that to destroy "T-100" by shooting with 6.5 mm ammo at frontal armor you need (about) 17776 rounds (less than 600 magazines). In other words, with enough ammo, 30 riflemen should be enough to destroy that tank in one minute (not counting reloading time).

But nobody would do that, much less the AI. Tank would just feed them a shell in the face first.

[-Gews- 1]

Vehicle armor will be somewhat changed from what I know. However not all people might actually be happy with greater realism.

Some people want things to remain the same as in OFP. :confused: better tank armor = better simulation = more fun.

Sure. It is not the point. The point is fundamental principles behind tank armor simulation, that may have real gameplay impact for bigger calibers. 6,5 is of course intentionally extreme example.

Exactly - from playing a couple (basic) tank sims, I realized how much is lacking from armored gameplay in ArmA.

For example, in ArmA 2, a T34-85 could easily destroy an Abrams. In fact, an AS50 could easily destroy a T-72 (10 shots, rear engine)!

In ArmA 3, the tanks seem much stronger, it takes multiple APFSDS rounds to destroy a "Slammer". I tried destroying the "Slammer" with the Mi28 cannon - it took 200 rounds of APDS and maybe about 150 rounds of HE. That is improved from ArmA 2, where a 30mm cannon could easily destroy tanks...

But still, the damage model is lacking. We need actual penetration modelling based on "real life" values, not hitpoints. For example, look at Steel Beasts Professional. Even the arcade game World of Tanks has better armor penetration modelling than I have seen in ArmA.

It is an issue that actually effects gameplay, hopefully the ArmA series will try to improve on it just like they have tried to improved on graphics and infantry controls, etc.

[Damian90 697]

Some people want things to remain the same as in OFP. better tank armor = better simulation = more fun.

As far as I can say, vehicles will most likely receive for example realistic armor thickness, which means greater realism but also will encourage more tactical and smart gameplay, and to better know your vehicle, it's strong and weak points.

There will also be some more realism improvements.

However it depends how much of this, zGuba will be able to implement.

Best would be to wait for next big patch, I think this is when many of these improvements will be presented to public.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Damian90

[maturin 12]

But still, the damage model is lacking. We need actual penetration modelling based on "real life" values, not hitpoints. For example, look at Steel Beasts Professional. Even the arcade game World of Tanks has better armor penetration modelling than I have seen in ArmA.

You're a little out of date. We have penetration-centric damage now. The damage model just hasn't really gotten there yet, since we still have damage being done without penetration, and the existence of hull hitpoints.

[-Gews- 1]

You're a little out of date. We have penetration-centric damage now. The damage model just hasn't really gotten there yet, since we still have damage being done without penetration, and the existence of hull hitpoints.

I haven't checked fully into damage and penetration, but I was able to destroy the "Slammer" with weapons that in real life would never penetrate a Merkava's frontal armor.

Also, crew members never seem to be injured by sabot rounds, for example. The round hits the tank and only damages the tank, the "behind armor effects" do not seem to be modeled at this point... it would be cool to have a sabot hit your tank and instantly injure / kill either you or other members of your crew, depending on the location of the hit, etc.

[maturin 12]

Yeah, I don't fully understand the halfway implementation we have now. Penetration works a lot better for APCs.

[nodunit 397]

Some people want things to remain the same as in OFP. :confused: better tank armor = better simulation = more fun.

For some reason whenever I read things such as this it always brings me back to people saying that the helicopter flight model in OFP with its terrain hugging and mostly 'static' movement was more realistic..you just have to trust these people to adapt and learn or simply leave them behind, its not worth it to hold back the games potential to differentiate itself from the rest.

It's still likely very much WIP, first implimentations of this magnitude don't just go off without a hitch or in a timely fashion.

[progamer 14]

Vehicle armor will be somewhat changed from what I know. However not all people might actually be happy with greater realism.

If your not happy with greater realism, mod it to your liking. Just look at Armaholic and see there's mods like Arcade helicopters.

[-Gews- 1]

If your not happy with greater realism, mod it to your liking. Just look at Armaholic and see there's mods like Arcade helicopters.

Or it could be a menu difficulty option like "extended armor" and other such things.

[Doombell 10]

Now that they are working on getting actual penetration of vehicles they might be able to make a more proper system by putting any parts that register damage inside the first physics hull that needs to be penetrated.

I wouldn't mind seeing more separate damageable components (especially for aircraft), but that sounds like it might have its own complications.

[progamer 14]

Now that they are working on getting actual penetration of vehicles they might be able to make a more proper system by putting any parts that register damage inside the first physics hull that needs to be penetrated.

I wouldn't mind seeing more separate damageable components (especially for aircraft), but that sounds like it might have its own complications.

Fixed wing aircraft need to be totally rebuilt basically.

[Damian90 697]

If your not happy with greater realism, mod it to your liking. Just look at Armaholic and see there's mods like Arcade helicopters.

Who said that I am not happy with that?

[jgbtl292 0]

and the funny not exist place in the model for 6 full loaded soldiers ^^

[progamer 14]

and the funny not exist place in the model for 6 full loaded soldiers ^^

The Merkava Mk4 does have room for soldiers. It doubles as a squad transport in real life.

[jgbtl292 0]

The Merkava Mk4 does have room for soldiers. It doubles as a squad transport in real life.

bullsh.t the space is for two wounded soldiers to bring them back in a save zone with no backpacks !! and not for an full equipment grenadier group ;) is not an ifv

when you make the space for the group then you have a very very low ammo in the tank !

Edited November 10, 2013 by JgBtl292

[-Gews- 1]

bullsh.t the space is for when you make the space for the group then you have a very very low ammo in the tank !

Yes, one passenger = minus 12 rounds.

Normal capacity = 48 rounds

So 4 extra passengers = 0 rounds left

So with 6 passengers you would only have the few rounds of ammunition stored in the turret. ArmA 3 should change or remove the "battle taxi" feature when the tank is full of ammunition...

[Damian90 697]

Merkava Mk4 have only 10 rounds in turret bustle magazine, rest is stored at the hull rear in ammunition containers. I might talk about this with zGuba, next time we have some conversation.

[PantherAl 11]

I seem to have missed the traffic in this thread, but yes: To get room for passengers in the Merk, you do have to give up Ammo. Nothing is for free in the AFV world. I would love to see however the TC's MG, The Co-Ax, Mort, and the external co-ax modeled though as they are a big part of what makes a Merk a Merk. I'll disagree with those that say the Merk isn't the most well protected Tank out there (I do think it is), I will agree that the level of protection is sometimes overstated to a fare thee well.