CSAT and NATO are not believable

[chops 111]

Saying its the future does not magically make the US operate another countries vehicles. Makes no sense regardless of it being in the future or the past.

What about the present? You know where the USMC's LAVs are from?

[Polygon 11]

The real truth and a major plot twist is that CSAT and NATO are exactly the same army.

Yes, just like with Bioshock Infinite ending of alternative timelines with multiple alternative events existing.

[maffa 29]

if i dont remember bad, US law prohibits buying directly military merchandise from foreign corporations "as-is": they must be presented and built in the US by american contractors -this both for security and economical protectionist reasons. This said, most often than not Us military have pretty exact replicas of foreign made equipment. Back to the light CAS jet, the M346, altough an Italian plane, has been proposed for the trainer role by a Boeing-Alenia joint venture: Alenia couldnt present its own plane without an american endorser. same with FN Minimi/M249: they are not imported from Belgium, but built by an american corporation subsidiary to FN, in South Carolina.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Maffa

[chortles 263]

To say nothing of the brouhaha and years of legal wrangling over the A-29B Super Tucano vs. the AT-6B Texan II for a CAS turboprop fixed-wing, because of the fact that the latter's manufacturer is a Kansas corporation while the former's originator is Brazil's Embraer, even though (or because) it has a Nevada corporation for its prime contractor, with the Super Tucano's avionics (normally directly through Israel's Elbit Systems) being through Elbit's American subsidiary, and the aircraft to be assembled in Florida...

And yeah, several of the US inventory MGs are through FN Herstal's American subsidiaries, not just the M249 (and variations thereof, including MK 46/MK 48) but also the M240, the quick-change-barrel version of the M2HB, the GAU-21/A (M3M) and the M3P (on the Avenger ADS and the Kiowa) for vehicle-mounted weapons, and of course for non-MGs there's the SCAR series and their sidearms... the 4-five is a renamed FNP/FNX-45 Tactical.

[dm 9]

Saying its the future does not magically make the US operate another countries vehicles. Makes no sense regardless of it being in the future or the past.

What about the present? You know where the USMC's LAVs are from?

Not to mention, for the US Army alone (in the real world present):

Guns by Italians (M9, M1014)

Guns by Germans (MP5, M320, M256 (Main gun on M1 Abrams))

Guns by Belgians (M4 upgrade, M240, M249, M2, SCAR)

Guns by the UK (M68 (Main gun on Stryker MGS))

Weapons by Sweden (AT-4)

Weapons by the UK (M252 Mortar, M119 Howitzer, M777 Howitzer)

Weapons by Israel (M120 Mortar)

Vehicles by South Africa (Cougar, RG-31, RG-33, Buffalo)

Vehicles by Israel (MaxxPro)

Vehicles by the UK (C-23)

Vehicles by Canada (O-5 series, Stryker (Tho technically the design is Swiss))

Vehicles by Italy (C-27J Spartan)

Vehicles by France/Germany/Spain (UH-72)

Note: when I say "by" I mean that the original design comes from.

Also, don't forget that BAE Systems is owned wholly by a British company, so everything designed and produced by them could be considered "British" (FMTV series, Caiman MRAP, M2 Bradley upgrades, M109 upgrades, etc etc)

[maffa 29]

And the Agusta Westland choppers, too, from italy...

[odie0351 67]

And the Agusta Westland choppers, too, from italy...

not sure if your referring to the sea king series here but just in case read the first paragraph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SH-3_Sea_King

although I am aware that anything read in Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt it sounds pretty legit to me. Yes many current, previous & future American vehicles and weapon systems originated in other nations. Generally when the US uses someone elses toys its because they have significantly better performance or fill a gap in capabilities...the merkava doesn't fit that description because it is not better, atleast not significantly so, than the abrams nor is there any pressing need for an MBT that can act as an adhoc apc. As for the namer yes the united states military tested it along with several other APC/IFV designs. "The Army found that although the vehicles assessed met some GCV requirements, no currently fielded vehicle met enough without needing significant redesign."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCV_Infantry_Fighting_Vehicle Again with the Wikipedia and grain of salt statement but none the less it kinda validates my point.

[maffa 29]

Ah, uh no i was thinking about the long and tormented story of the Presidential Marine One, which is a AgustaWestland EH/AW101. TBH i thought there were at last one or two more helos made by AW in use in the US but i probably mixed them with those in use to the British forces.

My statement about foreign merchandise built in US soil was only to explain the general rule of it, didnt want to enter in the particular Arma 3 scenario.

[Fulcrum90 10]

Im still disappointed we didnt get the HAL LC helicopter for CSAT. They look as SciFi as it gets. Like something out of a movie.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/LCH_%28HEMANT_RAWAT_%29_%282%29.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/HAL_LCH_at_Aero_india_2013.JPG

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I love it how inproportionate the size of this APC is compared to its counterpart in A3.

IFV - Panther

---------- Post added at 16:48 ---------- Previous post was at 16:45 ----------

? The little smiley face means nothing in threads really. :) either I suck at reading sarcasm or you do not realize I am a huge advocate for realism in arma 3.

---------- Post added at 23:48 ---------- Previous post was at 23:45 ----------

Currently in game, US soldiers drives Israeli armor. The Chinese, Russians, and Turkish all share everything like a huge mosh pit. you seem to think arma 2's realistic solution of splitting assets by country of origin is not really important. But for immersion of assets, it's insanely important. You don't see a game were you fight as Americans in chinese vehicles and aircraft now do you? Arma 3 is just a downgrade in this aspect currently.

---------- Post added at 00:07 ---------- Previous post was at 23:48 ----------

Even just giving the merkava tank crew an Israeli flag on there uniforms and other flags to applicable vehicle operators would be nice.

I fully agree on that aspect. The vehicle is nice, but that doesn't give it a reason to be used for NATO forces now does it. The only factions that have appropriate hardware is Opfor and Greenfor.

[bad benson 1733]

Well maybe the campaign will explain who has what and why.....or not :rolleyes:

As long as the mission I'm playing has 95% of the headgear removed or replaced I'm happy.

lol. well who knows maybe the story will explain how the iranians got their hands on those alien insect helmets. maybe they joined forces with the secret alien invasion. would be a nice twist and would also work well with their furniture "joke".

[antoineflemming 14]

lol. well who knows maybe the story will explain how the iranians got their hands on those alien insect helmets. maybe they joined forces with the secret alien invasion. would be a nice twist and would also work well with their furniture "joke".

Lol. Look at the spec ops helmet, and you will notice that it's actually Russian, almost like an integrated, future soldier, Zsh 1-z helmet (think Future Force Warrior, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, or something like that).

[dm 9]

I love it how inproportionate the size of this APC is compared to its counterpart in A3.

IFV - Panther

I dunno, its a little bit off, but it doesn't look too bad to me:

vs

[ck-claw 1]

Saying its the future does not magically make the US operate another countries vehicles. Makes no sense regardless of it being in the future or the past.

We know the past.

Magically no but,not impossible?

[progamer 14]

The mosh pit of vehicles just seems like a way of creating to balanced factions. Arma 2 did pretty well with asymmetric warfare and that just seems throw out the window for Arma 3.

[chortles 263]

Lol. Look at the spec ops helmet, and you will notice that it's actually Russian, almost like an integrated, future soldier, Zsh 1-z helmet (think Future Force Warrior, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, or something like that).

That would actually be a workable explanation -- in the Armaversum timeline, at least one CSAT member pushed through their "Future Soldier" program* enough that it was adopted by whichever forces were landing onto Altis/Stratis.

(As for it being Russian kit... believe you me, if BI's just bored of depicting Russian OPFOR and is perfectly happy to stick their kit onto someone else, they have my sincere support.)

Arma 2 did pretty well with asymmetric warfare and that just seems throw out the window for Arma 3.

If you're using Operation Arrowhead as your vision of what asymmetrical warfare means... then shifting away from that was wholy intentional, devs such as Moricky have gone on record about that even before pettka got you in such a panic.

* Turns out that quite a few nations are running such programs in real life, not just the US, Russia ("Ratnik"), France (FELIN), Germany (IdZ) and the UK (FIST), but also Australia, Canada, India, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and more.

[bad benson 1733]

Lol. Look at the spec ops helmet, and you will notice that it's actually Russian, almost like an integrated, future soldier, Zsh 1-z helmet (think Future Force Warrior, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, or something like that).

http://imageshack.us/a/img9/9116/byqe.jpg

well for me personally it doesn't change the fact that its design looks stupid :p i like more of the simple soldier look. same with NATO. not enough simple helmets without all that fancy stuff on them (thank god for AlexVestin's AV_indUS). future doesn't have to mean that every single soldier's gear is bleeding edge. anyways. i'm not a gear nerd so my main beef is that it looks just silly. but i guess that's just me.

[progamer 14]

well for me personally it doesn't change the fact that its design looks stupid :p i like more of the simple soldier look. same with NATO. not enough simple helmets without all that fancy stuff on them (thank god for AlexVestin's AV_indUS). future doesn't have to mean that every single soldier's gear is bleeding edge. anyways. i'm not a gear nerd so my main beef is that it looks just silly. but i guess that's just me.

Is depends how events played out, but still they would be using things that are prototypes now.

[chortles 263]

That's the funny thing about -- some stuff was back in the day relegated to SOF, but then over time "trickle-down" occurred until such gear was practically the norm (more often than not) for non-SOF.

[fumanwho 10]

I dunno, its a little bit off, but it doesn't look too bad to me:

http://www.delorted.net/forum_nonsense/panther.jpg

vs

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Namer_in_US.jpg/800px-Namer_in_US.jpg

Evidence and using simple tests to establish facts about how the game actually works has no place on this forums sir. Mods ban DM. Do it quick before this spreads to other threads !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---------- Post added at 18:45 ---------- Previous post was at 18:45 ----------

I dunno, its a little bit off, but it doesn't look too bad to me:

http://www.delorted.net/forum_nonsense/panther.jpg

vs

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Namer_in_US.jpg/800px-Namer_in_US.jpg

Evidence and using simple tests to establish facts about how the game actually works has no place on this forums sir. Mods ban DM. Do it quick before this spreads to other threads !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[progamer 14]

Evidence and using simple tests to establish facts about how the game actually works has no place on this forums sir. Mods ban DM. Do it quick before this spreads to other threads !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---------- Post added at 18:45 ---------- Previous post was at 18:45 ----------

Evidence and using simple tests to establish facts about how the game actually works has no place on this forums sir. Mods ban DM. Do it quick before this spreads to other threads !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at the comparison between the two fronts. I think that's we're the issue may be.

[fumanwho 10]

I dunno, its a little bit off, but it doesn't look too bad to me:

http://www.delorted.net/forum_nonsense/panther.jpg

vs

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Namer_in_US.jpg/800px-Namer_in_US.jpg

Evidence and using simple tests to establish facts about how the game actually works has no place on this forums sir. Mods ban DM. Do it quick before this spreads to other threads !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Also, don't forget that BAE Systems is owned wholly by a British company, so everything designed and produced by them could be considered "British" (FMTV series, Caiman MRAP, M2 Bradley upgrades, M109 upgrades, etc etc)

BAE tries this shit with the UK govt, DE&S and the press whenever they're trying to flog "British" armoured vehicles to us. The press are usually the only ones that fall for it. :D

[antoineflemming 14]

That would actually be a workable explanation -- in the Armaversum timeline, at least one CSAT member pushed through their "Future Soldier" program* enough that it was adopted by whichever forces were landing onto Altis/Stratis.

(As for it being Russian kit... believe you me, if BI's just bored of depicting Russian OPFOR and is perfectly happy to stick their kit onto someone else, they have my sincere support.)If you're using Operation Arrowhead as your vision of what asymmetrical warfare means... then shifting away from that was wholy intentional, devs such as Moricky have gone on record about that even before pettka got you in such a panic.

* Turns out that quite a few nations are running such programs in real life, not just the US, Russia ("Ratnik"), France (FELIN), Germany (IdZ) and the UK (FIST), but also Australia, Canada, India, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and more.

Well then again the US or any nation won't be fighting asymmetric wars forever. They will only fight asymmetric wars against an asymmetric threat. Some people forget that conventional wars were fought before asymmetric wars.

[MissionCreep 12]

Some people forget that conventional wars were fought before asymmetric wars.

Really? How about the Macedonean/Greek Conquest (332–323 BC), The Roman Empire's Germanic Wars East of the Rhine (9 CE to 50 CE), Hunnic Empire (437-469), Mongol Conquests (1206-1337), the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), Boer War (1899-1902) to name just a few from history? All match the definition of asymmetric warfare.

"Asymmetric warfare can describe a conflict in which the resources of two belligerents differ in essence and in the struggle, interact and attempt to exploit each other's characteristic weaknesses. Such struggles often involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, the weaker combatants attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality.[1] Such strategies may not necessarily be militarized.[2] This is in contrast to symmetric warfare, where two powers have similar military power and resources and rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution."

Asymmetric conflict has existed for as long as there have been people.

Edited October 20, 2013 by MissionCreep