Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
johnnyrocket

The Gau-19 is made by General Dynamics.

Recommended Posts

Because the game is made by Bohemia, and they can put what they want on their fictional helicopters. If you dont like it, Mod it, or leave it.

Actually he is welcome to post on the forums about it, regardless of how upset it makes you.

But in general none of the equipment in the game makes any sort of sense. For instance why would the US use a Merkava? It's a downgrade from the M1A2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually he is welcome to post on the forums about it, regardless of how upset it makes you.

But in general none of the equipment in the game makes any sort of sense. For instance why would the US use a Merkava? It's a downgrade from the M1A2.

Mods will fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually he is welcome to post on the forums about it, regardless of how upset it makes you.

But in general none of the equipment in the game makes any sort of sense. For instance why would the US use a Merkava? It's a downgrade from the M1A2.

OP is the one upset. I could give a Sh*t less. Repeating the same point ITS MADE BY GENERAL DYNAMICS is what irritates me.

EDIT: The guy with one post uses it to be a dick? nice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the ones asking why other countries might use a gun made by General Dynamics or any other American company.... The answer is in the question....

They are companies and they are out to make money! The only thing that stops them from selling the latest and greatest weapons to any country around the world with money to buy them is the export laws put on them by the governments. When something better comes out the old stuff is normally cleared for export within a year or 2 and sometimes not even then. Just take a look at IDEX. (International Defense Exhibition - Held normally in the U.A.E.)

I'd also like to point out that it's not just American companies that operate this way.

Edited by Squirrel0311

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

soo you made an entire thread, complaining about PACT having access to some look alike of a GAU-19, and you consdier this important to make a thread? com'on guys? really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soo you made an entire thread, complaining about PACT having access to some look alike of a GAU-19, and you consdier this important to make a thread? com'on guys? really?

Hypocrisy thy name is you.

I made my point, now it seems this thread has been overrun with those of you who can only say "This makes me mad", without any other input.

To the few who actually had something meaningful to say, great. The rest of you...Trolls. There is no rotary tri-barrel 30mm that Russia (the creator of the Mi-48) has made. It's resemblance to the gau-19/b is unmistakable. Upset? No. Annoyed? Yes. And I don't see an Arms trade agreement between the U.S. and Iran anytime soon. especially within the 15 years the game takes place. It bothers me when a game based on realism just cuts corners. If someone can prove me wrong about Russia having a tri-barrel 30mm then I'll welcome all information they have to offer. Until then I stand by my disgruntled post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hypocrisy thy name is you.

I made my point, now it seems this thread has been overrun with those of you who can only say "This makes me mad", without any other input.

To the few who actually had something meaningful to say, great. The rest of you...Trolls. There is no rotary tri-barrel 30mm that Russia (the creator of the Mi-48) has made. It's resemblance to the gau-19/b is unmistakable. Upset? No. Annoyed? Yes. And I don't see an Arms trade agreement between the U.S. and Iran anytime soon. especially within the 15 years the game takes place. It bothers me when a game based on realism just cuts corners. If someone can prove me wrong about Russia having a tri-barrel 30mm then I'll welcome all information they have to offer. Until then I stand by my disgruntled post.

It's very simple. Future = allowed so deal with it.

At least that's my understanding of the situation. Which also explains US NATO forces using something based off of the Merkava's chassis but not using the mortar, or similar things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The timelines diverged back in '82, so the hardware simply happened to mirror our timeline until some point between 2013 (PMC) and 2035...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If someone can prove me wrong about Russia having a tri-barrel 30mm then I'll welcome all information they have to offer. Until then I stand by my disgruntled post.

You are correct, there is no rotary version of the 2A42. However, and again, the weapon mounted on the Mi-48 in Arma 3 is not a GAU-19. It bears a passing resemblance to one, in that it has three barrels and a flat wrap-around retaining shroud, but that's all it is - a passing resemblance.

Lazy on the part of the devs to not come up with an original design? Sure.

A point worthy of a topic with more than three posts? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The timelines diverged back in '82, so the hardware simply happened to mirror our timeline until some point between 2013 (PMC) and 2035...

The developers didn't want to do as much work as Arma 2. And wanted to draw in a different more mainstream crowd. And force most people to wait for mods like ACE to fix everything when mods like ACE only made the game more realistic and added on, but didn't I everything. Maps didn't need stupid gameplay changes and they worked just fine ( ex: Chernarus).

---------- Post added at 06:22 ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 ----------

It's very simple. Future = allowed so deal with it.

At least that's my understanding of the situation. Which also explains US NATO forces using something based off of the Merkava's chassis but not using the mortar, or similar things.

So in the future, everything gets downgraded and Armies only use a few random weapons and vehicles?

Edited by ProGamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The developers didn't want to do as much work as Arma 2. And wanted to draw in a different more mainstream crowd. And force most people to wait for mods like ACE to fix everything when mods like ACE only made the game more realistic and added on, but didn't I everything. Maps didn't need stupid gameplay changes and they worked just fine ( ex: Chernarus).

---------- Post added at 06:22 ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 ----------

So in the future, everything gets downgraded and Armies only use a few random weapons and vehicles?

Join the club, I want to hop in my Abrams again.

But, I really don't see, beyond the odd army lineups, how the game is less realistic. Everything except the balanced-y feel of the two armies feels fairly good to me. Yeah, ArmA3's got its issues, but it isn't the end of the world for me, because at least now I don't feel like a robot when I walk.

Edited by steamtex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The developers didn't want to do as much work as Arma 2. And wanted to draw in a different more mainstream crowd. And force most people to wait for mods like ACE to fix everything when mods like ACE only made the game more realistic and added on, but didn't I everything. Maps didn't need stupid gameplay changes and they worked just fine ( ex: Chernarus).

:confused: care to expand on the bolded parts.

So in the future, everything gets downgraded and Armies only use a few random weapons and vehicles?

Downgraded how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:confused: care to expand on the bolded parts.

Downgraded how?

The comment about going futuristic to avoid rivet counters. They didn't want to make models exact like Arma 2.

Downgraded by things like tanks using 6.5mm, fire rates are insanely low, various parts of tanks are missing, other vehicles would make a better choice instead of current vehicles and the idea that fake names exams less work on vehicles and weapons. Arma 2 vets generally feel arma 3 is going away from arma 2's direction and more towards a mainstream unrealistic and a balanced game.

---------- Post added at 01:10 ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 ----------

Join the club, I want to hop in my Abrams again.

But, I really don't see, beyond the odd army lineups, how the game is less realistic. Everything except the balanced-y feel of the two armies feels fairly good to me.

The feel of the armies is a lot more boring then Arma 2. The differences between them feel forced and not thought threw. Going futuristic to not had e to worry about making them realistic.

---------- Post added at 01:15 ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 ----------

The AAF were supposed to be inferior to CSAT and NATO. But instead they are on the same technological level if it better then NATO and CSAT. People are even calling for the AAF to get there own sniper, attack heli and tank. Doesn't make sense for some underpaid government forces to be just as powerful as two super powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironic considering that the direction you claim to be seeing is itself also being driven by other "Arma 2 vets" who were here before DayZ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ironic considering that the direction you claim to be seeing is itself also being driven by other "Arma 2 vets" who were here before DayZ...

Thats not the issue. The issue is that from Arma 2 too Arma 3, we see things like "Arma 2 had too much content to be commercially justifiable", the term "Rivet counting", the word "Sim" is now a bad word and people are told to go buy VBS, while "authenticity" is the new word, mainstream > realism, balance > realism and many other things. While in many places Arma 3 is much better than Arma 2, in others it is a complete downgrade. I eagerly look forward to seeing if the upcoming internal review fixes this because as the developers have said "things didn't turn how they we're supposed too".

---------- Post added at 03:01 ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 ----------

I don't want to sound rude or mean but some of the things said just appear like a more lazy attitude towards Arma 3 compared to Arma 2.

Edited by ProGamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saying, the 2A42 uses the 30x165mm shell. That is a POWERFUL cartridge, the rounds are very heavy, it is capable of 90% of the muzzle energy of the 30x173mm used in the GAU-8/A. And we all know how large the GAU-8/A is.

For comparison, the Apache uses the M230 in 30x113mm. The projectiles only weigh 60% as much, and muzzle energy is only 40% of the 30x165mm. It mainly uses HEDP ammunition.

My point is, it seems a bit questionable to have a 30x165mm multi-barreled cannon mounted on an attack helicopter, so I hope it is supposed to use a less powerful/smaller shell.

I have not looked at the configs to check muzzle velocity, etc, perhaps I will do so later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats not the issue. The issue is that from Arma 2 too Arma 3, we see things like "Arma 2 had too much content to be commercially justifiable", the term "Rivet counting", the word "Sim" is now a bad word and people are told to go buy VBS, while "authenticity" is the new word, mainstream > realism, balance > realism and many other things.
... how is an internal review supposed to fix a dev attitude that you're claiming to be seeing, especially when the project lead's response to the complaints about SURVIVE (everything from bugs to design to concept) as embodied in SITREP #00033 is "positive feedback energized the team to keep on truckin' with ADAPT", and or when "too much content to be commercially justifiable" is coming from the very top, as in from the CEO of the devs, Maruk himself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... how is an internal review supposed to fix a dev attitude that you're claiming to be seeing, especially when the project lead's response to the complaints about SURVIVE (everything from bugs to design to concept) as embodied in SITREP #00033 is "positive feedback energized the team to keep on truckin' with ADAPT", and or when "too much content to be commercially justifiable" is coming from the very top, as in from the CEO of the devs, Maruk himself?

These statements from other developers seems to reflect the current game pretty well. Changing names to not have to do as much work on the models in some areas. Trying to create a more balanced game with random vehicles and weapons. Why not just change the names slightly to continue using them? Because then you have to do more work to follow the real life version.

And that statement "not commercially justifiable" having an affect on the way BI decided to deal with Arma 2 content in Arma 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ArmA 2 had too much content to be commercially justified.

This is true. It's just that it was written by someone with English as a second language, and then interpreted by you, a rabid butthurt fan.

ArmA 2 had too much content to be repeated in ArmA 3. To do so would be commercially unjustifiable.

And that's because half of ArmA's content was left over from Game 2, a failed project, and thus the supposedly wonderful wealth of vehicles was dependent on a costly development debacle, and a lot of sub-par assets that weren't really unique or useful. I too mourn the loss of mountain bikes, but their implementation was just embarrassing. Nothing like ramming a bush at 70 km/h and coming to an instant stop, or taking a sharp turn and not even leaning slightly, amirite?

ArmA 2's release content was a special case. Recreating that quantity in another release was 'commercially unjustifiable.'

Hope I interpreted that well for you. As for lapses in quality of ArmA 3 content, there is no excuse beyond 'shit got fucked up.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats not the issue. The issue is that from Arma 2 too Arma 3, we see things like "Arma 2 had too much content to be commercially justifiable", the term "Rivet counting", the word "Sim" is now a bad word and people are told to go buy VBS, while "authenticity" is the new word, mainstream > realism, balance > realism and many other things. While in many places Arma 3 is much better than Arma 2, in others it is a complete downgrade. I eagerly look forward to seeing if the upcoming internal review fixes this because as the developers have said "things didn't turn how they we're supposed too".

---------- Post added at 03:01 ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 ----------

I don't want to sound rude or mean but some of the things said just appear like a more lazy attitude towards Arma 3 compared to Arma 2.

Whats this??? ProGamer admits flaws with arma 3????! now we just need to get steamtex to...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that that's telling, the difference between ProGamer's view on what Arma "should be" and Maruk's view, in how the latter treats Game 2 as what you call "a costly development debacle", characterized mainly as overambitiousness run amok to BI's detriment, whereas Arma 2 was meant to be as intended to be "something we felt could be close to the original ambitions of “Game 2â€, but sill would be something feasible to manage", whereas Game 2's high goals were "simply too much to handle"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that that's telling, the difference between ProGamer's view on what Arma "should be" and Maruk's view, in how the latter treats Game 2 as what you call "a costly development debacle", characterized mainly as overambitiousness run amok to BI's detriment, whereas Arma 2 was meant to be as intended to be "something we felt could be close to the original ambitions of “Game 2â€, but sill would be something feasible to manage", whereas Game 2's high goals were "simply too much to handle"...

My main gripe is not the amount of content, but rather the choice of content.

---------- Post added at 17:08 ---------- Previous post was at 17:07 ----------

Just saying, the 2A42 uses the 30x165mm shell. That is a POWERFUL cartridge, the rounds are very heavy, it is capable of 90% of the muzzle energy of the 30x173mm used in the GAU-8/A. And we all know how large the GAU-8/A is.

For comparison, the Apache uses the M230 in 30x113mm. The projectiles only weigh 60% as much, and muzzle energy is only 40% of the 30x165mm. It mainly uses HEDP ammunition.

My point is, it seems a bit questionable to have a 30x165mm multi-barreled cannon mounted on an attack helicopter, so I hope it is supposed to use a less powerful/smaller shell.

I have not looked at the configs to check muzzle velocity, etc, perhaps I will do so later.

i would expect a helicopter like this and weapons like this from the Chinese, not the Russians.

---------- Post added at 17:09 ---------- Previous post was at 17:08 ----------

And why did we end up with the MX class when plenty of modern real world weapons exist that do the same thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whats this??? ProGamer admits flaws with arma 3????! now we just need to get steamtex to...
Join the club, I want to hop in my Abrams again.

But, I really don't see, beyond the odd army lineups, how the game is less realistic. Everything except the balanced-y feel of the two armies feels fairly good to me. Yeah, ArmA3's got its issues, but it isn't the end of the world for me, because at least now I don't feel like a robot when I walk.

Ahem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And why did we end up with the MX class when plenty of modern real world weapons exist that do the same thing?

Maybe BIS wanted to give CMMG a chance to design the next Masada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×