Tanks DLC Feedback

[nightovizard 20]

Am I the only one that would like to have more variants of the actual vehicles? I remember there were screenshots before the release where they showed variants of the vehicles which never made into it. For instance:

 

 

Would it be that hard to just release an update and include those vehicles they already showed in ingame screenshots? I mean, they could even add more variants using the method they have been using: Sharing turrets between factions. The NATO and CSAT AA vehicle use the same turret, but they have different chasis, so if they decided to do it that way, why not expanding the vehicle variety even further? It would be fairly easy.

For instance, look at the first image. Vehicles like the marshal, gorgon and marid could take advantage of that, and they could become very useful fast mobile artillery vehicles. They would just need to combine what they have already done and change the camo textures so they match with the faction. Now look at the second image link, I am not too fond of using a tank variant with a coil gun, instead I would much rather let the marshall, gorgon and marid have it, I'm not crazy, after all the stryker would be pretty much the same:

 

Now, another thing that would be very welcome is for the blufor faction to have an IFV with autocannon and ATGMs, so I would really appreciate if the devs included a Panther or Marshal variant, with the gorgon and kamysh turret. Mostly because when playing blufor on vanilla multiplayer, I have seen people use gorgon and kamyshes rather than their own faction vehicles, and that feels really weird. All the factions share turret in design, yet bluefor is lacking something and forcing the player to use other faction vehicles? I think something has to be done there, and maybe the dlc tanks will be the time for it. So ATGMS for blufor vehicles please, even more if we have to face redfor tanks which have ATGMS too. Visual example:

 

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/88226010754602403/A204907AB1087C19AE8AD33318C14B4BF8199620/

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/88226010754603200/CECA5316BB8AC805484DD5595DCC9709029A57AD/

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/88226010754409787/214E76E61A9B8EE2158E40D3157311ED60AC7875/

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/88226010754408759/68A45A8528249ED401B07DC6FD202BDDB5C2ABC9/

 

Now, another thing it would not be hard to add is the F-35, which you showed early in ingame screenshots too:

 

 

I'm not a fan of the F-35, really. But its VTOL capabilities were really appreciated, and the F-35 from the image looks phenomenal, so could its addition be possible for the Jets dlc? Or maybe as a free update seeing you have it already prepared to be ingame. I know you can find it in mods, but there are many servers out there that only use vanilla stuff, so I think it would be something nice to have in vanilla game.

 

Now when it comes to tanks themselves, I do not think interiors are that important, mostly because you are looking through optics, and all the action happens outside the vehicle. It is not like an aircraft cockpit where you need to lock around you, so I am not really sure why people are asking for detailed interiors when you are not even going to see them at all. Quality over quantity for a DLC is something I agree with, but spend your resources wisely, and I do not think spending a lot on interiors would be wise. I would rather have 2 tanks that look amazing from the outside, than just 1 that looks amazing both outside and inside, where I am never going to be looking at.

 

So, focus on improving the ones we already have ingame, (for instance improving the damage and collision model and other related stuff people have stated in other comments), and adding features such as a ''Trophy'' system. I am not sure which tanks you are going for, but if you do the same as in the jets dlc (2 for bluefore, 1 for opfor, 1 for independent) I would say:

 

Blufor:

 

Near future improved abrams tank: I am too used to the Abrams tank that it would be weird not to have it, and it would complement the merkava tank really well. The M1A2 SEP could be the best option for it, but as you have done before you can do your own inspired by it. for instance:

 

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/tomclancy/images/3/38/EndWar_JSFTANK.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110621005417

 

PL-01: As a secondary tank it would do so well in the Blufor side, its stealth design fits both in the faction and the future context. I would not use it as the main battle tank due to its infantry fighting vehicle origins, but it is a perfect addition.

 

OPFOR:

 

T-14 ARMATA: The devs were looking at it in the scanning the horizon 2017 video, so I am pretty sure they are going to include it. Maybe there is the possibility for other ARMATA platforms to be included too? Although that does not seem to be necessary at all.

 

Independent:

 

Challenger 2: Since they have British an German stuff, and already a German tank, I think a British addition would be a good addition. Another option could be the Turkish tank altay, or maybe the k2 black panther, though maybe that last one is too good. But AAF already got a leopard tank which many say is the best in the world so...

 

If you are only going to add 3 tanks, then just do them for blufor and redfor, I would much rather have 2 new tanks in either blufor and opfor than 1 in each 3 of them. Independent side does not have artillery neither any AA vehicle nor gunship, so for what reason would they get another new tank? It is better to give them vehicles they lack for balancing purposes. And you can do it the easy way:

 

-  for the AA vehicle take the FV-720 Mora chassis and put the cheetah turret with their own camo on it.

- for the artillery take the MBT52 Kuma chasis and put the M4 scorcher turret with the faction's camo on it.

- although it is not indispensable, you could also give the panther turret to either the gorgon or mora as grenade launchers on apc and ifvs is something they also lack.

- reskin the prowler to fit in the AAF faction too.

- for the gunship a new one would be needed, which means that it would be the hardest thing to do. Unlike blufor and redfor there is no need for a VTOL for independent side, as it wouldn't make sense. But there is always the option for a xi'an or  blackfish reskin option to fit independent side if it is needed.  I'm surprised BI has not yet done any private military company for independent side since it is set in the future. But well, for the AAF gunship there are few options:

 

- Superhind: any different countries own Hinds, and it would be a way to bring back one of the classic vehicles, with its improved version of course. I think it would b the best option for them:

- TAI/AgustaWestland T-129 ATAK: a Turkish gunship based on an Italian gunship, since altis is set in Europe, close to turkey, it would not be crazy, though I sill think the hind is a better option:

 

- eurocopter tiger: Another European helicopter possibility:

 

- ah-1z viper: The good thing about the viper is that you would only need to port it from arma 2, with some improvements of course, but doing that would save a lot of time and resources. It would just require a AAF camo and you are done.

 

 

- your own: For the game setting you have the possibility of creating a new non existing vehicle, although that would maybe be giving too much attention to the independent side, and it would have to be done from scratch. I specially like this design for the altis forces:

 

 

And finally more APC and IFV variants for all factions, with more weapon options, like the ones I stated at the beginning of the message. You could give us a lot of new content the easy way, so i'll be looking forward to it as I have seen many people requesting similar stuff, and I know BI really takes into account our feedback.

 

 

 

[midnightwyvern 1]

Personally, I would love it if we could have a Sikorsky X-2 based attack helicopter in the future:

As far as tanks, the example from Tom Clancy's Endwar was excellent.

[esfumato 75]

The tanks DLC is not going to have any air vehicles.

 

Quote

• Arma 3 Tanks (est. Q1 2018*)
  Following our well-established DLC model, the Arma 3 Tanks DLC will build on the experience of armored combat in Arma 3 by delivering 3 new armored vehicles, new playable content, and more. The package will be accompanied by a free platform update, which will implement new features and improvements related to tracked and armored vehicles.

 

I remember that cheetah and Tigris share the same turret and independents don't have any kind of AA vehicle. So 1 new AA turret and 1 AA vehicle should be a must.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K22_Tunguska

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Anti-Tank_System

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZA_Loara

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_87_self-propelled_anti-aircraft_gun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapier_(missile)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crotale_(missile)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K33_Osa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_95_SPAAA
 

 

[McQuade 10]

We should replace Patria AMW with Eitan which would fit more into the IDF Armory:

 

 

 

[midnightwyvern 1]

7 hours ago, esfumato said:

The tanks DLC is not going to have any air vehicles.

 

 

I remember that cheetah and Tigris share the same turret and independents don't have any kind of AA vehicle. So 1 new AA turret and 1 AA vehicle should be a must.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K22_Tunguska

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Anti-Tank_System

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZA_Loara

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_87_self-propelled_anti-aircraft_gun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapier_(missile)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crotale_(missile)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K33_Osa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_95_SPAAA
 

 

 

 

 

That was just some off topic posting.  Wasn't trying to suggest the DLC had aircraft.

[esfumato 75]

7 hours ago, midnightwyvern said:

That was just some off topic posting.  Wasn't trying to suggest the DLC had aircraft.

 

maybe for the 2018-2019 Roadmap.

[deadpool2894 14]

All I want is a classic m1 Abrams with the 105mm cannon and m60 Patton for my 80's missions

[McQuade 10]

BLUFOR has Namer - Why not give OPFOR this:

 

[instagoat 133]

I read over the damage model research done by olds and the summaries found especially here: Arma 3 Damage Description, and I did two firing tests against vanilla vehicles using the vanilla damage model, one of which I already published here.

The other one is in spoilers below, for those who are interested.

 

What the tests showed pretty clearly is that the damage model is rather antiquated in its feel, and the way it is configured diminishes its strengths because of the legacy components as I see them. The biggest problem with that is the HP based component damage and the bad simulation of ammunition types against armour.

This includes non-simulated HEAT jets, extremely ricochet-happy fin stabilized KE projectiles and on/off modelling of blast damage.

Another problem is the lack of complex internal components, and very basic damage model for the components that do exist. The components of the vehicle that are made obvious in the damage display are tracks, hull, turret, gun. That's it.

I keep repeating myself, but there is one game that does this (in a, pardon the pun, transparent fashion) rather well, and it's warthunder.

 

 

The rounds are all individually modelled hitboxes, so are fuel tank, horizontal + vertical turret drives, and even components like optics and radios. The gun alone is made of three parts (vertical drive, breech, gunbarrel) all damageable individually. The amount of vehicles available in that game at release is comparable to what we have in A3, and old vehicles could progressively be updated. It pains me that my favourite game has less accurate vehicle damage models, than a mediocre PVP tank game. The problem with A3 is really not the outside of the vehicles, but the inside, and the inside only.

 

In the Kuma test, the shots penetrating on the loaders side more often than not went straight through the turret bustle, where the ready rack is located. This has blowoff panels. The projectile going through the door would leave a hole, but most of the energy would be dissipated through the roof of the rack - instead, the crew bailed, and the tank completely blew up a couple of seconds later. Damaging a critical component seems to set off some sort of countdown timer, and then the the truck/tank/plane blows up. Arma also simulates no fragmentation at all, or spalling. So if the shot with its infinitely small size missed the gunner, it missed him completely. Crew are very tough to hurt, while their vehicle is extremely easy to hurt. There are large, empty volumnes inside the tank only occupied by people. Putting an inert round (ie KE) through the lower side of a Kuma should injure the crew, but not cause the vehicle to explode. If a fire is caused, the fire extinguishing system kicks in. So, in summary, improvements on the vehicles would be most welcome as follows:

 

Make vehicle components individually damageable and increase amount of these systems. Also model in 3D space their shape and location. These should be for example: guns (single piece model is enough), gun drives and stab, optics, engine, fueltanks, drivetrain, tracks, all crewmembers.

Armor layouts should also be constructed of 3D components instead of flat surfaces on the outside of the vehicle as they appear now. For example, frontally, large parts of the Kumas armour outboards of the turret and hull are inert, but in the current model they count as penetrating damage if something manages to get "under the skin". That also means different armour types according to the location and design in real world terms.

This requires modelling ERA, NERA, Standoff panels, Fences and such in more detail.

Inside damage model should include component fires, fire suppression systems, spalling and fragmentation, and possibly (not really necessary imo) overpressure.

Ammuniton, especially HEAT, needs to be modelled in detail. APFSDS is extremely ricochet happy, and behaves more like a ball bouncing off surfaces, rather than an arrow. Shot traps don't matter with modern tanks, otherwise everybody would be really careful in avoiding them.

 

Once internal components can be damaged and destroyed, the hull HP damage can be removed entirely or at least tweaked so it is the last resort to destroying a vehicle, rather than the first. I hope I'm not being greedy after the additions to the fire control systems along with the jets.

 

I also made a rough layout sketch, like this:

 

The optronics on the countermeasure launchers obviously should disable the automatic launching of CM, not the gun vision. The sizes of the components are -extremely- wonky. The CITV for example is a much larger device that sinks well into the turret. The main gunners sight is also much larger, but this is just an approximation and illustration, so I left it as it is. The size and location of the ammunition is more or less correct, though. I did not add the fuel tanks, most of which seem to be located above the tracks and in front of the engine (?). Hitting those would obviously cause fuel spillage and fires. They are also NERA. Swedish STRV-103 used fuel tanks to augment its armor. There is a video of firings against the S-tank here, which is enormously informative: click  I also made a frontal sketch like this, but I think that's redundant, so I won't show it here. Unless there is interest?

 

Below my firing test against the Slammer (using T-100.)

 

Spoiler

 

I used the quick and fun projectile tracing script by hypnomatic and slow motion to visualize the impact point and behaviour of the shots inside the vehicle. I have screenshots from all impacts, but just like with the kuma for sake of clarity, I only show the picture above, corresponding with the list below.

Firing vehicle, T-100. Distance 2060 m

1: Impact on turret beak, above left cheek, ricochet. No damage.
2: Impact on gun mantlet flat, penetrated and ricochetted outboards, stopped by gun mantlet sides. No damage. (1)
3: Ricochetted off turret cheek, outboards of MG port. No damage. (2)
4: Penetrated armour inboards of MG port, was stopped by the armour. No damage (3).
5: Ricochetted off the hull in front of the driver. Impact immediately blew up the tank (no delay). (4)
6: Ricochetted off turret beak just inboards of MG port. No damage. (1)
7: Perforated the turret armor just outboards and below smoke dispensers on commanders side, ricochetted inside and was stopped by back armor of turret bustle. Hull damaged, Gun and Turret heavily damaged. (2)
8: Ricochetted/Penetrated turret armor on lower shot trap, impacted turret three times before bouncing down into the hull. Vehicle destroyed. (3)
9: Perforated the turret on commanders side just above the beak, ricochetted multiple times passing through the armour and entered the combat compartment outboards of the commander. Penetrated into the turret bustle and was stopped by the back armor. Gun and Turret red. (1)
10: Impacted turret beak flat frontal face and was stopped by it. Engine destroyed. (2)
11: Impacted turret beak outboards of engine cover. Tank immediately blew up. (Circle is error area).(3)
12: Ricochetted off lower glacis at an impossible angle. No damage. (1)
13: Ricochetted off upper glacis in front of gun brace. Impacted on underside of main gun barrel. Vehicle destroyed. (2)
14: Shot bounced off turret front just in front and inboards of gunners sight. Turret and Gun disabled. (1)
15: Impact just outboards of gun mantlet, commanders side, square on the beak. Shot stopped by armor. Engine damaged. (2)
16: Impact just 3´o clock high of 10. Shot stopped by armor. Engine disabled. (3)
17: Penetrated armor just above turret ring and ricochetted along the slope of the armor, impacting twice and once on the engine deck. Vehicle destroyed. (4)
18: Ricochetted off turret inboards and on innermost smoke discharger. (1)
19: Ricochetted off the turret on lesser-sloped band outboards of turret beak, below smoke dischargers. Gun and Turret disabled. (2)
20: Ricochetted off turret just inboards the top of MG port. (3)

 

Hits on the engine side of the turret almost always damage the engine, even if the shot is stopped by the armor and was nowhere near the engine (no. 10, apfsds). This is in line with the description in the biki article. The slammer also suffers from blowuperitis, even if hit in the turret. No. 17 blew up the tank immediately, the circle indicates the approximate area of the impact that I could discern from bullet trace and angles over the textures. The Kuma did not blow up the moment a shell hit on the turret, not a single time. Maybe a config issue? More detailed damage model in the kuma, since it is a more recent vehicle? From a little bit of testing, the turret of the T-100 and Slammer are both about as bouncy, but both blow up eventually even if not a single shot penetrates the armor. Case in point, no. 13. Again, correct with how the system is designed, but not really satisfying.

 

Also, "no damage" means no visible damage on the HUD and no damage textures. I didn't use any debug displays, since I do not know how to use them.

 

 

[Jnr4817 215]

Will there be hit points added to the tracks, so that a .50cal rifle can actually be used as a anti-vehicle rifle and take tracks out?

[Polyus 139]

Well, I might as well throw my hat in the ring.

 

For the NATO tank, maybe something a bit different, like the Strv 2000:

 

And for CSAT, An Armata, but not out Armata:

[Strike_NOR 898]

On 4/14/2017 at 10:00 PM, instagoat said:

Below my firing test against the Slammer (using T-100.)

 

All in all a very detailed and informative read Instagoat. Thanks for that! I have the exact same hopes for ARMA 3, that they lend some elements from War Thunders damage model. The clue is that in real life, the "hull" wouldn't really stop the vehicle until it looks like swiss cheese, which is after several hundred hits. The tank is usually killed way before it gets to that, either by : Crew Kill, Mobility Kill, Combat Effectiveness kill, Ammo detonation, Fires etc.

 

Arma already does some pretty sweet penetrations for projectile ammunition, but I agree with you that the internal armor composition and internal components need to be revised for existing and future tanks if we want to see better Armored Warfare.

 

My major gripes are:

 

• Too few damageable components in armored vehicles
• No HEAT simulation
• "HULL" damage deaths

 

Like you've said. In the Biki, it states that even if the hit does not penetrate, the HULL soaks up some damage. Come to think of it, ricochets may actually be particularly deadly due to this mechanic.

 

Imagine the following: A tank has 1000 HP (hull).

 

1. You fire a shot that penetrates the armor. It deals hull damage, and damages internal hitboxes. If either is critical, tank blows up.

 

2. You fire a shot that ricochets, dealing 200 hull dmg. It then hits the armor again and ricochets, dealing further 200 hull dmg. Lastly it penetrates armor and deals 200 damage, before stopping in the hull and dealing 200 damage.

 

I am afraid that the current mechanic works like this. That each ricochet deals x amount of damage to hull, while in real life it would only "carve" a dent or channel into the exterior armor plates, but continue working as if nothing happened. Although it may seem like that happens ingame, it's a completely different matter if the game now considers your HP to be 80%. That means you can only survive 5 ricochets, even though they theoretically should do 0 dmg. And it gets even worse if the same shot ricochets multiple times.

 

We should have a system where an actual ricochet deals 0 damage to the tank.

 

Where a penetration below a certain caliber deals 0 - minimal damage to the tank/hull

 

Where a non-penetrating hit at flat angles destroy the shell, there should be some "Kinetic energy calculation versus armor thickness" to determine if internal damage occurs (spalling inside).

 

HE ammunition should also get a remake. First, a fuze setting (impact or microdelay), and secondly a penetration value. If the shell has impact fuse, it will explode immediately regardless of what it strikes. If it has microdelay impact fuse, it should first calculate penetration, then explode inside/beyond if it penetrates, or on surface if it does not. HE ammo should use a similar calculation to the non-penetrating armor hit for internal damage, but also deal splash damage to "external" modules. This would work perfectly in urban combat, where large caliber HE ammo is likely to penetrate walls and subsequently detonate inside the building.

If BI would do HE penetration, it essentially means that all weapons could use penetration in arma. Imagine a GBU-12 hitting the roof of a building. If it's thin enough, the GBU may go straight through and explode inside. It would also allow for modders to create bunker-busting weapons.

 

HEAT ammo simulation. Simplest solution is to have a "HE" round that spawns/produces a kinetic projectile upon impact. This warhead can be fitted to ATGM's, HEAT rounds, AT-launchers, AT-mines, AT-grenades etc etc. It would also allow for Top-attack or "overfly" munitions to work properly.

 

All in all it is very interesting and I hope that we will get more advanced damage models for ground vehicles, together with better damage effects and ammunition types.

 

 

 

I would strongly recommend that you download RHS mods and try the same experiments with their tanks. The armored combat feels way better in RHS, and they also have working HEAT simulation.

Try the following: Use RHS Kornet Missile against M1A2 Abrams, switch to camera mode and "clip" inside the M1A2 and use setacctime 0.01 or something. Watch the impact. You will see, although internal modules are invisible, that there are multiple strikes against the inside of the tank and crew. This gave me enormous hopes because if modders can pull it off, BI sure can too! I hope they use RHS modders for Tanks DLC.

 

 

[McQuade 10]

[en3x 209]

Please stop with pictures of infantry fighting vehicles. Or with tanks. Use Community wishes and ideas thread for that.

[McQuade 10]

An medium Tank would be nice

 

 

Or just some modern Anti-tank Vehicles like BRDM mounted with Konkurs

 

[x3kj 1247]

On 18.4.2017 at 0:33 PM, Strike_NOR said:

1. You fire a shot that penetrates the armor. It deals hull damage, and damages internal hitboxes. If either is critical, tank blows up.

 

2. You fire a shot that ricochets, dealing 200 hull dmg. It then hits the armor again and ricochets, dealing further 200 hull dmg. Lastly it penetrates armor and deals 200 damage, before stopping in the hull and dealing 200 damage.

 

I am afraid that the current mechanic works like this. That each ricochet deals x amount of damage to hull, while in real life it would only "carve" a dent or channel into the exterior armor plates, but continue working as if nothing happened. Although it may seem like that happens ingame, it's a completely different matter if the game now considers your HP to be 80%. That means you can only survive 5 ricochets, even though they theoretically should do 0 dmg. And it gets even worse if the same shot ricochets multiple times.

 

 

No it doesnt work like that. Damage is dealt in proportion to the amount of speed lost due to the contact with fire geometry. And bullet damage is also reduced in proportion to speed loss. Only explosive projectiles, or projectiles failing to penetrate armor deal full damage, but only once.

These are the issues that are present with the current engine side damage system: https://feedback.bistudio.com/T120542

Vehicle configuration (location and settings of hitlocations and firegeometry) side is something else.

[Strike_NOR 898]

1 hour ago, x3kj said:

No it doesnt work like that.

 

Thanks for the enlightenment. I read your feedback tracker article and the whole ordeal made a lot more sense.

 

It also makes me wonder how hard it would be to model a "heart"/"lung"/"brain"/"gut" internal organ hitbox. It may sound gruesome, but it would definitely add to realism, because body armor protects these vital organs.

 

I am less interested in Infantry because it's not a "human hunting simulator", but tanks are different. Tanks deserve some proper damage calculations and the way it's handled today I call for a change.

 

I wonder how much can be achieved by only altering the Maths in the engine. It would be ideal if one could change the damage model without having to tamper with every vehicle damage LOD again, you know? Like implementing the correct penetration and damage simulations without having to re-do all of the vanilla + mod armored vehicles.

 

[Blackbomber200 11]

I'll just put this Link here instead of reposting the entire Forum here...

What I want to see from the Tanks DLC

[Blackbomber200 11]

On ‎3‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 0:09 PM, Damian90 said:

If I may suggest something for BI Devs.

 

If you guys want some inspiration for potential new MBT for NATO/BLUFOR, here are some suggestions.

 

 

This is modified M1 tank within the CATTB (Components Advanced Technology Test Bed) program, this prototype was nicknamed "Thumper", was armed with bicalliber 120/140mm smoothbore XM291 ATAC (Advanced Tank Cannon) gun (bicalliber means that the gun breech was universal and could accept both 120mm and 140mm barrels and munitions), had new turret with XM91 autoloader in the rear bustle.

 

If you want the Next MBT for NATO you should be looking at the M1A3, not older M1A1s and M1A2s. The M1A3 will be the US Military and probably NATO's new Main Battle Tank by 2035 even earlier to be honest. They are developing and working on the M1A3 right now. Ontop of that the Germans are working on the Leopard 3.

 

[Damian90 697]

7 minutes ago, Blackbomber200 said:

If you want the Next MBT for NATO you should be looking at the M1A3, not older M1A1s and M1A2s. The M1A3 will be the US Military and probably NATO's new Main Battle Tank by 2035 even earlier to be honest. They are developing and working on the M1A3 right now. Ontop of that the Germans are working on the Leopard 3.

 

 

You do realize that M1A3 is not in development, and this thing is a pure fantasy?

 

At the moment in final phase of development is M1A2SEPv3 and M1A2SEPv4 is in early development phase. Maybe, maybe eventually when all ECP's will be added to M1, then and only then, designation will be changed to M1A3.

 

Not to mention that US Army is in the early development phase of new MBT that will replace M1 series in 2030's.

 

And no, Germans are not working on Leopard 3, such program do not exist. However Germany and France work on new MBT called MGCS or Main Ground Combat System.

[Blackbomber200 11]

3 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

 

You do realize that M1A3 is not in development, and this thing is a pure fantasy?

 

At the moment in final phase of development is M1A2SEPv3 and M1A2SEPv4 is in early development phase. Maybe, maybe eventually when all ECP's will be added to M1, then and only then, designation will be changed to M1A3.

 

Not to mention that US Army is in the early development phase of new MBT that will replace M1 series in 2030's.

The Picture I used? Yes that's fake, fantasy, not real. No one knows what the M1A3 will look like, since its still in development stages. However if you don't think that the US Army isn't working on the Next M1A Series of tanks to combat the T-14 you must be delusional. Also considering Arma III is in 2035 the M1A3 will likely be rolled out. Development doesn't have to mean working Prototypes, beside the Russians Started researching and developing the T-14 Tank in 2011 and had it in production in 2015, if you're seriously telling me that the US Military can't research and develop the next M1A Series of Main Battle Tanks over an 18 year span you must have some problems.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1a3.htm

[Damian90 697]

5 minutes ago, Blackbomber200 said:

The Picture I used? Yes that's fake, fantasy, not real. No one knows what the M1A3 will look like, since its still in development stages. However if you don't think that the US Army isn't working on the Next M1A Series of tanks to combat the T-14 you must be delusional.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1a3.htm

 

Global security is a shit not a source. Besides kid, I work as military journalist in Poland, so I check better sources, like for example official US Army brefiengs.

 

As I said, at the moment the only new variants of M1 in development, are M1A2SEPv3 (ECP1A upgrade) and M1A2SEPv4 (ECP1B upgrade), there is no M1A3 in development or even in concept development phase. However in concept development phase is new MBT, called Future Tank, within the NGCV program.

 

https://fortbenningausa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/02-Mounted-Reuirements-Breakout.pdf
http://slideplayer.com/slide/10870946/
http://www.g8.army.mil/pdf/Army_Equipment_Program2017.pdf

 

Here, some official sources for you to read.

[Blackbomber200 11]

13 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

 

Global security is a shit not a source. Besides kid, I work as military journalist in Poland, so I check better sources, like for example official US Army brefiengs.

 

As I said, at the moment the only new variants of M1 in development, are M1A2SEPv3 and M1A2SEPv4, there is no M1A3 in development or even in concept development phase. However in concept development phase is new MBT, called Future Tank, within the NGCV program.

 

https://fortbenningausa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/02-Mounted-Reuirements-Breakout.pdf
http://slideplayer.com/slide/10870946/
http://www.g8.army.mil/pdf/Army_Equipment_Program2017.pdf

 

Here, some official sources for you to read.

Yes Because the US Military would really tell you what they are working on and building. Yes because I'm sure everyone knew about the U2 Spy plane back in the day too. Global Security was just one source I used. Also as an Mechanical Engineer I'd prefer if you not call me a kid, lets keep this civil and not name call. I'm an engineer and your a Military Journalist for POLAND, not even the United States. I'm fully aware of the M1A2SEPv3 and M1A2SEPv4, but I have a sneaky suspicion our next Main Battle Tank will be called the M1A3, something just tells me since we have a pattern of keeping things original...

F-15

F-16

F-18

F-22

F-35

M1A1

M1A2

M2 Bradly

M3 Bradly

 

You starting to see the pattern?

We over here in America don't like to change names a lot and just like to add a new number.

This is also 2035 in Arma III and if you seriously think that the US Military would not have developed a new Main Battle tank or the M1A3 by 2035 over a span of 18 years whilst the Russians researched and developed the T-14 in 2011 and started production by 2015, then I don't even know what to say. Not to mention the US Defense Department is getting a bump of 70 Billion Dollars with orders from the President to modernize and upgrade the US Military. Also this is a video game set in 2035, try to think outside the box for once. Be creative and think in the future, not now in the past. Geez.

[Damian90 697]

1 hour ago, Blackbomber200 said:

Yes Because the US Military would really tell you what they are working on and building. Yes because I'm sure everyone knew about the U2 Spy plane back in the day too. Global Security was just one source I used. Also as an Mechanical Engineer I'd prefer if you not call me a kid, lets keep this civil and not name call. I'm an engineer and your a Military Journalist for POLAND, not even the United States. I'm fully aware of the M1A2SEPv3 and M1A2SEPv4, but I have a sneaky suspicion our next Main Battle Tank will be called the M1A3, something just tells me since we have a pattern of keeping things original...

F-15

F-16

F-18

F-22

F-35

M1A1

M1A2

M2 Bradly

M3 Bradly

 

You starting to see the pattern?

We over here in America don't like to change names a lot and just like to add a new number.

This is also 2035 in Arma III and if you seriously think that the US Military would not have developed a new Main Battle tank or the M1A3 by 2035 over a span of 18 years whilst the Russians researched and developed the T-14 in 2011 and started production by 2015, then I don't even know what to say. Not to mention the US Defense Department is getting a bump of 70 Billion Dollars with orders from the President to modernize and upgrade the US Military. Also this is a video game set in 2035, try to think outside the box for once. Be creative and think in the future, not now in the past. Geez.

 

Yes, US military will report about their plans for conventional weapon systems because it's nothing classified, and they need to report that both for Congress and public domain so tax payers know, for what their taxes are spent for, because this is how system in US is made.

 

I understand you are a teenager and not adult human being, but please, stop being a smart ass kid, because there are people older than you, with greater knowledge and experience, including this forum.

 

Also I don't know if you noticed, but I clearly said that US Army is working on the new MBT, called at the moment as Future Tank, within the NGCV or Next Generation Combat Vehicle program. So yes, US Army is working on such project, but it's not M1A3. M1 might receive M1A3 designation, eventually, when all ECP's will be implemented, and designation code change is justified.

 

Oh and by the way, M2 and M3 are named Bradley, after general Omar Bradley kid, not Bradly, it seems you lack even knowledge about your own countries history. And M2/M3 designation is not a pattern, M2 is simply designation for the Infantry Fighting Vehicle, while M3 is Cavalry Fighting Vehicle variant. As engineer you shold know that... Kid.

 

Same with aircraft designation system, F-15, F-16 etc. are all different aircraft, there is no pattern here you speak about, kid.

[Blackbomber200 11]

1 hour ago, Damian90 said:

 

Yes, US military will report about their plans for conventional weapon systems because it's nothing classified, and they need to report that both for Congress and public domain so tax payers know, for what their taxes are spent for, because this is how system in US is made.

 

I understand you are a teenager and not adult human being, but please, stop being a smart ass kid, because there are people older than you, with greater knowledge and experience, including this forum.

 

Also I don't know if you noticed, but I clearly said that US Army is working on the new MBT, called at the moment as Future Tank, within the NGCV or Next Generation Combat Vehicle program. So yes, US Army is working on such project, but it's not M1A3. M1 might receive M1A3 designation, eventually, when all ECP's will be implemented, and designation code change is justified.

 

Oh and by the way, M2 and M3 are named Bradley, after general Omar Bradley kid, not Bradly, it seems you lack even knowledge about your own countries history. And M2/M3 designation is not a pattern, M2 is simply designation for the Infantry Fighting Vehicle, while M3 is Cavalry Fighting Vehicle variant. As engineer you shold know that... Kid.

 

Same with aircraft designation system, F-15, F-16 etc. are all different aircraft, there is no pattern here you speak about, kid.

*Sigh* I see you lack creativity. For the one who is pretending to be the adult in this situation you lack even basic manners or respect and still continue to name call. Even if you were older I find that excuse quite lacking because you assume just because you are old you are smarter. There are probably younger people than both you and I who know more than the both of us combined. 

 

Yes I noticed you said NGCV called Future Tank, but its called Future Tank. For all we know it could be the M1A3, seeing as how it has no official name. When we were making an aircraft to compete with the SU-27 and the Mig-29 we called it the Advanced Tactical Fighter and didn't know much until the F-23 and F-22 competed. So maybe General Dynamics will compete and win the contract with an M1A3, I highly doubt the M1A2 will still be in service in 2035, seeing as how in Arma III The A-10 is replaced with the A-164 a more stealthier and advanced version of the A-10, modernizing things can only take you so far. Eventually you will have to rebuild and redesign a vehicle or Aircraft completely because the current platform can no longer support modern armaments and technology. I also know who General Omar Bradley, so I would appreciate if you were not a rude fk and didn't assume that I didn't know. I made a typo, people do this. I know as a Reporter you guys think you are the model of perfection and everyone who makes typos are beneath you, but sometimes you guys make Typos too. Honestly you'd think you'd have better things to do than monitor the US Militaries Armored Vehicles Program. You know with NATO and Russian tensions rising in Europe on the Russian Border and the largest Military Buildup since World War II. Or maybe you'd even pay attention to your own Country's current Tanks, like I don't know the PL-01? The PL-01 MBT is a nifty looking tank being made in Poland as one of your next Main Battle Tanks.

 

Maybe Bohemia won't add any M1A Series Tanks and maybe they will make NATO's next main battle tank the PL-01, unrealistic as it is to make such a light tank mostly made for stealth a main battle tank, it would be Bohemia's call to make. This is set in the future and anything could happen. All I suggested was Bohemia make an M1A3 for Arma III, even if the US Military does not make the M1A3 their next Main Battle Tank. It would be cool too see what Bohemia would create. All I'll say next is its rude and narrow minded to assume younger people can't be interested or knowledgeable in Armored Vehicles such as Tanks and APCs, Older doesn't make you smarter.

 

So why don't we just end this conversation now and at least part on a friendly note that we both like Armored Warfare vehicles and are passionate about them.