ARMA 3: Conflict '85 - A CUP expansion

[radioheadmemes 25]

 

[killjoyau73 359]

Here you go lads, smash some Capitalist Pigs! Rat Hole

 

 

[radioheadmemes 25]

You're doing god's work, Killjoy, keepin' that hype train chuggin'.

[Polyus 139]

Are there any plans to add the T-62? Seems amazing that there isn't one in the game yet.

[REFORGER88 144]

3 hours ago, Polyus said:

Are there any plans to add the T-62? Seems amazing that there isn't one in the game yet.

It would have to be scratch built, which means time. Since the US needs a lot of gear and vehicles scratch built compared to the Soviets, I doubt it will come anytime soon. Also, the T-64 would be more appropriate I should think, given the 1980s time period.

[Polyus 139]

9 hours ago, REFORGER88 said:

It would have to be scratch built, which means time. Since the US needs a lot of gear and vehicles scratch built compared to the Soviets, I doubt it will come anytime soon. Also, the T-64 would be more appropriate I should think, given the 1980s time period.

Ah, I see.

[scimitar 221]

19 hours ago, REFORGER88 said:

It would have to be scratch built, which means time. Since the US needs a lot of gear and vehicles scratch built compared to the Soviets, I doubt it will come anytime soon. Also, the T-64 would be more appropriate I should think, given the 1980s time period.

 

From a Cold War historical standpoint, the appropriateness of the T-64 would depend on who is being equipped with it and where it's being used. Unlike the T-62, the T-64 was never exported outside of the
Soviet Union, so only Soviet units were equipped with it and the units that were equipped with it were mostly stationed in East Germany to counter the threat of British Chieftain tanks. The T-64 was also very expensive to produce compared to the T-62, so it was produced in much lower numbers compared to other Soviet tanks. Even when the T-64 was still in service with the Soviets, the T-62 and later the T-72 served alongside it and in much greater numbers. So, while the T-64 was a very advanced tank for it's time, the T-62 was more numerous and more likely to be encountered on a battlefield. Also, even considering the time frame, the T-62 and even the T-55 were used in Afghanistan. It's believed that no T-64s were used there with the possible exception of a few that may have been sent there to be tested in combat. The T-62 and variants were also fielded by the Russians in limited numbers in the Chechen wars and even as recently as the Russia-Georgia conflict in 2008. The T-62 is actually still in service with the Russian army in some reserve units.

[bars91 956]

The actual reason for old 55s and 62s in A-stan was more along the lines of "dushmans have no armor, so why bother - just slap some ERA on the ol stuff and it'll do"

[scimitar 221]

@bars91

 

That's true but it's not the whole story. For the most part, the Soviets kept their best units and equipment in Eastern Europe to counter NATO forces. They also didn't send advanced designs to Afghanistan for the fear that captured vehicles and equipment would wind up in the hands of the US military for evaluation. At times, during the Cold War, the US government was even paying bounties to Soviet pilots that defected with their aircraft, so it was a valid concern. I forget what tank it was (probably a T-62) but I remember reading an article years ago (perhaps in SOF magazine) about a Soviet tank that the US Army acquired from the Mujahideen for evaluation. Many captured Soviet manufactured vehicles were also acquired from Israel and other nations during the Cold War for evaluation purposes. As for the current use of the T-62, that can be accounted for by the fact that the Russians almost never scrap old/obsolete military equipment. They issue older vehicles and equipment to reserve (second rate) units and keep much more of it in storage for use in the future should the need arise. That old stored equipment explains the constant sighting of the AKM and AKMS in the hands of Russian forces in recent conflicts, even though the AK-74 became the standard issue infantry rifle many years ago. As the US, Russia and many other countries have discovered recently, sometimes the 7.62mm round is needed when smaller rounds such as the US 5.56mm and Russian 5.45mm rounds just don't have enough punch to do get the job done. Sometimes those Russian reserve units and their T-62's wind up doing peacekeeping duties (such as in South Ossetia in 2008) and when a conflict kicks off, those units participate in the initial combat. At other times, reserve units are sent in (such as in the Chechen conflicts) when more or fresh troops are needed and their older equipment won't be much of a hindrance to their duties.

 

As for the mod, I believe that the T-62 would be a good addition but since OFP and it's "style" is the focus of this mod, we probably won't see it. For historical accuracy, the M60A3 should be the most prevalent US MBT but since the M1A1 was the most prevalent in OFP, it will probably remain so in the mod. The same is true of the M16A1 being more historically accurate than the M16A2. While I'm greatly anticipating this mod, I hope that we will eventually see another mod released to complement it, that will mostly replace the M1A1 with the M60A3 and the M16A2 with the M16A1 and perhaps add other vehicles and equipment that could possibly allow for other scenarios, such as moving the game back in time a bit to the 70's or earlier.

[pigbenis80 21]

@scimitar You're right about limited T-64s in A-Stan. They sent a few over, but the already problematic engines had trouble performing in the high altitude terrain. They never saw combat, however. They prolly would've never used them en masse anyway. 1.) The design was considered advanced for the time, and they didn't want any getting captured and analyzed by CIA 2.) They were built for service in tank battalions, whereas the T-62 was used in support of motorized rifle companies.

       Since it was so expensive, the T-72 (which was designed as an emergency in the event of war) was put into production, despite the objections of Alexander Morozov, the T-64's designer and the one who used his considerable political power to push for the tank's production despite it's high cost.

[scimitar 221]

@pigbenis80

 

Yep on all accounts, and also, the T-64 was designed for the plains of Europe, where massive tank v tank battles were envisioned. There is some debate as to whether it was a failed design or simply too advanced for it's time. The faulty engines were eventually replaced with a better design but it always suffered from a weak suspension and poor crew ergonomics due to it's small size. It's also said that the autoloader had a tendency to try and load crew members into the gun breach. Still, it was the basis for development of the T-80, which is also debated as to it's reliability and effectiveness despite it's advanced features. IMO, considering the number of T-72s (which as you mentioned, were a stopgap design) still in service despite newer designs, there must be something to the belief that both tanks were very advanced but not really suitable as complete replacements for more robust and reliable tanks. Perhaps the best thing to come from the T-64 and T-80 was that they provided the motivation (fear) for Western armies to develop their own advanced designs, such as the Abrams, Challenger, Leopard II and Leclerc.

[pigbenis80 21]

@scimitar The T-72 reminds me of a modern-day M4 Sherman. Not the best tank out there, but they're fuckin everywhere. Every country that can't afford M1's and can't design their own tank, has T-72's, or their own licensed variant. In fact, my profile pic is one getting hit by an M1A1 DU round during the Iraq invasion

[pigbenis80 21]

T-80's were garbage, by the way

[scimitar 221]

I wouldn't say that T-80s were garbage but they definitely had their issues. Most of the T-80s lost in the Chechen wars were due to poor tactics used by the Russians. They were a bit of a paper tiger though as evaluations after the Cold War was over, confirmed.

[pigbenis80 21]

True, their tactics were absolutely suicidal. You can't take an urban area without infantry support

[kothen 57]

Seeing all this work and content really makes me appreciate the awesome community we have

[killjoyau73 359]

G'day everyone, here's the single mission "Commander" for you to enjoy.

 

 

 

[killjoyau73 359]

 

Should be ready in a few days... 

 

"What's the situation sir? Any activity in the village?"

 

[R0adki11 3949]

7 hours ago, killjoyau73 said:

 

Should be ready in a few days... 

 

"What's the situation sir? Any activity in the village?"

 

The OFP Demo Mission, one my favourite mission of all time 

[slatts 1978]

As Killjoy continues to do Gods work, we're still churning away on the new content. Most of it is config work but hopefully soon we'll have something that I know you'll be excited to see :) 

[killjoyau73 359]

Sadly I haven't been able to get the DEMO ending to work (With the Shilka shooting down the UH60) or the binocular overlay to function properly during the opening cut-scene. Otherwise it's worked out ok.

[R0adki11 3949]

2 hours ago, killjoyau73 said:

Sadly I haven't been able to get the DEMO ending to work (With the Shilka shooting down the UH60) or the binocular overlay to function properly during the opening cut-scene. Otherwise it's worked out ok.

No worries, i will still happily play the mission. It will take me back to getting the Demo on a CD-ROM on PC Gamer in 2001 

[killjoyau73 359]

Ok, she's ready. Just like R0adki11 I first played this back in 2001 from the demo disc attached to a PC Gamer mag, and it blew my F**king mind. 

Enjoy 

 

AMBUSH

 

"Bravo squad reporting, ready to attack, Sir!"

 

 

 

"Hang a left and try to avoid the trees..."

 

 

 

 

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Hopefully it ends with a smoking scattering of American limbs intermingled with bloody tread marks, as per 99% of my attempts of this scenario in any ArmA iteration.

 

Thanks for that!

[markocro 66]

This is most exciting thing for me on whole forums.

Thanks!