Tanks DLC Feedback

[Damian90 696]

7 hours ago, Blackbomber200 said:

*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.   

 

1. I do not really care if I hurt your feelings special snowflake. I talk about facts, and facts are facts, they can't be denied, or even argued with.

 

2. M1 series are meant to serve up to 2050 and beyond alongside NGCV vehicles and the Future Tank, untill completely replaced, which will take time, a lot of time. So for the moment, there is no M1A3 program, besides what is the reason of using the same primary designation code for a completely new and different vehicle? Did you even thinked about this? And what if US Army decides to designate it M5 for example? Or M1250?

 

3. PL-01 was nothing more than a concept mockup based on CV90 chassis for the WWB Gepard program. PL-01 was only partially functional (could drive around) and was empty inside, besides driver compartment. 

 

I actually seen PL-01 in person and it didn't made any good impression on me, neither on the army. Heck Army actually changed requirements so WWB Gepard will be larger and heavier armored vehicle, without any silly stealth features. Heck PL-01 itself was disassemled, and chassis was returned to BAE Systems.

 

So in Poland we actually laugh our asses seeing foreigners being so excited about PL-01 and not even knowing anything about the program! :D

Not to mention there is second program for a real MBT, with requirements under codename Wilk.

 

4. Younger people in general are dumb, especially these days, not all of them true, but majority, they are also arrogant. So pardon me for hurting your feelings, but as an older man I really do not care about them. Heck when I was teenager interested in this subject, I also had older mentors who treated me like shit when I said something dumb, and I will be eternally gratefull to them for that treatment, that forced me to use my brain more, and do a proper research.

 

5. Why end a conversation? You don't like to increase your own knowledge by simply listening someone with a greater knowledge? Look what you learned now about PL-01, and you would never know this from "sources" like globalsecurity site, which is a very poor source of informations.

 

When I was in the army, NCO's also didn't cared about our feelings, but in the end they made two great things, made us harder men, that are not feel insulted when told by someone with greater knowledge we are wrong, and they teached us a lot of usefull things.

My good advise for you, stop to care about your feelings, or that someone might offend you, or tell you difficult truth, instead listen people with greater knowledge, learn from them.

[Blackbomber200 11]

14 hours ago, Damian90 said:

 

1. I do not really care if I hurt your feelings special snowflake. I talk about facts, and facts are facts, they can't be denied, or even argued with.

 

2. M1 series are meant to serve up to 2050 and beyond alongside NGCV vehicles and the Future Tank, untill completely replaced, which will take time, a lot of time. So for the moment, there is no M1A3 program, besides what is the reason of using the same primary designation code for a completely new and different vehicle? Did you even thinked about this? And what if US Army decides to designate it M5 for example? Or M1250?

 

3. PL-01 was nothing more than a concept mockup based on CV90 chassis for the WWB Gepard program. PL-01 was only partially functional (could drive around) and was empty inside, besides driver compartment. 

 

I actually seen PL-01 in person and it didn't made any good impression on me, neither on the army. Heck Army actually changed requirements so WWB Gepard will be larger and heavier armored vehicle, without any silly stealth features. Heck PL-01 itself was disassemled, and chassis was returned to BAE Systems.

 

So in Poland we actually laugh our asses seeing foreigners being so excited about PL-01 and not even knowing anything about the program! :D

Not to mention there is second program for a real MBT, with requirements under codename Wilk.

 

4. Younger people in general are dumb, especially these days, not all of them true, but majority, they are also arrogant. So pardon me for hurting your feelings, but as an older man I really do not care about them. Heck when I was teenager interested in this subject, I also had older mentors who treated me like shit when I said something dumb, and I will be eternally gratefull to them for that treatment, that forced me to use my brain more, and do a proper research.

 

5. Why end a conversation? You don't like to increase your own knowledge by simply listening someone with a greater knowledge? Look what you learned now about PL-01, and you would never know this from "sources" like globalsecurity site, which is a very poor source of informations.

 

When I was in the army, NCO's also didn't cared about our feelings, but in the end they made two great things, made us harder men, that are not feel insulted when told by someone with greater knowledge we are wrong, and they teached us a lot of usefull things.

My good advise for you, stop to care about your feelings, or that someone might offend you, or tell you difficult truth, instead listen people with greater knowledge, learn from them.

Man Snowflake? Talk about taking a page out from us Conservatives in the United States. I don't give a shit about feelings, but you are one arrogant man. I was just trying to keep things friendly and civil. I really wish we would pull out of NATO, you guys can defend yourselves. That's assuming I wanted to learn from an arrogant man like yourself who can't even think creatively and doesn't think that Governments and Militaries change their minds or keep secrets. A man who denies change.

 

Facts? Some public report from the Military that's been so heavily dumbed down for civilians like you and myself, that for all we know the Military could be working on freaking hover tanks to replace the M1A2. Also you lack to understand that the Future Tank contract is where companies are competing to design the next Future Tank. I don't see any reason why General Dynamics wouldn't compete for that contract, winning that contract means securing financial stability. Also seeing as how the Current M1A2's and M1A1s can't even compete with the T-14 I see no reason to keep the M1A1 or the M1A2, like I said again, upgrading and modernizing can only take something so far. The M1 Abrahams series has been in service 1980 and the US has slowly been phasing out all the old stuff for the new stuff. The Humvee? That's being phased out by the JLTV by Oshkosh Defense Company. The M9 Berretta? That's being phased out by the Sig P320. The A-10? We've been trying to phase out the A-10, only reason why we haven't replaced it, is because its so god damn good. The F-35 can't replace the A-10, not that its even made to since its a Multirole stealth fighter jet, F-35 would be lucky if it could even compete with the SU-35 and MIG-35, I've worked on and with the F-35 and I still prefer the F-22.

 

Yes I look at the PL-01 and yes anyone who looks at it would be impressed by looks, seeing as I have never got to see one up close and examine it, but hey I guess every country has an F-35 Project that is completely useless in combat. Which I guess is why The United States always has to defend your sorry asses from a Mythical Russian Invasion that's never coming. You don't even have a tank that could compete with the T-14 and our tanks can hardly compete with the T-14 either, and the Germans are still working on a 30mm cannon, but that likely will have to be put on a new tank all together. I don't even know why the fuck we are arguing about this, when this Arma III a god damn video game. So what if Arma III put an M1A3 into the game even if it wouldn't be real?

[Damian90 696]

1. Future Tank project under NGCV program is at the moment at the concept development phase, which means no private contractor is taking participation in it, it's purely done by TARDEC, TACOM, ARL and so on, it's because in US there is GOCO system or Goverment Owned Contractor Operated, which means that some weapon systems at the beggining are developed solely by US goverment agencies, and later a choosen private contractor is invited to join.

 

Same was in case of XM1 pogram for example, initially it was being designed by TARDEC, TACOM and ARL (then known as BRL), and the requirements were made by MBTTF, only lated Chrysler Defense (later renamed General Dynamics Land Systems) and General Motors were invited to participate.

 

2. 

Quote

The M1 Abrahams

 

The tank is named M1 Abrams, not Abrahams. M1 is named after General Creighton W. Abrams. This is another lesson for you.

 

3. 

Quote

Also seeing as how the Current M1A2's and M1A1s can't even compete with the T-14 I see no reason to keep the M1A1 or the M1A2, like I said again, upgrading and modernizing can only take something so far.

 

And how do you know the M1A1SA or M1A2SEP is not able to even compete with T-14? T-14 is not some wunderwaffe, and have some weak spots, for example it's unmanned turret have no significant armor protection, which was concious decision to reduce it's size and weight, but it also means that any hit will be a probable firepower kill.

 

Another important factor is, that despite all propaganda noise surrounding T-14, for example it's active protection system is not the most modern or best one out there. Afganit is based on earlier Drozd-1/2 systems, and as such, it's hard kill countermeassures are unable to intercept either APFSDS rounds or top attack diving ATGM's like Javelin, Hellfire or Spike. Also high elevation attacks from conventional ATGM's or RPG's can't be intercepted by Afganit, simply because of the systems design.

M1A2SEPv3/v4 will also receive Trophy HV active protection system as short them upgrade, and as long term upgrade new MAPS or Modular Active Protection System, that will use both soft kill and hard kill countermeassures. Not to mention heavier Next Generation Armor Package that offers greater protection than current 3rd generation Heavy Armor Package. There are also some informations about further development of Explosive Reactive Armor in US, including ARAT series for M1, BRAT series for M2 and SRAT series for Strykers.

4.

Quote

Yes I look at the PL-01 and yes anyone who looks at it would be impressed by looks, seeing as I have never got to see one up close and examine it, but hey I guess every country has an F-35 Project that is completely useless in combat. Which I guess is why The United States always has to defend your sorry asses from a Mythical Russian Invasion that's never coming. You don't even have a tank that could compete with the T-14 and our tanks can hardly compete with the T-14 either, and the Germans are still working on a 30mm cannon, but that likely will have to be put on a new tank all together.

 

As I said, PL-01 was a concept mockup for a WWB Gepard program, and program requirements changed, so this concept is already obsolete.

F-35 is actually a good project and extremely good fighter jet. Only because program face some problems, does not mean it's a failure, but to know this, some greater knowledge on the subject is needed, and not "knowledge" from mass media that gives a brain cancer truth to be told.

As for NATO, again you seems to not understand geopolitics, in short, the US builded it's power on alliances, because alliances gives US both necessary territory for force projection, and economic expanse. This in result builds US citizens prosperity in extremely peacefull way for a superpower. If you want US to withdraw from it's alliances, you are pretty much calling for US not being as powerfull as it is and can be, in terms of military force, economics or political influance.

In terms of technology, I explained already why T-14 is not some wunderwaffe. Oh and by the way, I assume you meant new Rheinmetall Rh130 smoothbore gun, well the work on this gun is extremely slow, what was presented was very early prototype, I would even say a mockup, as there is no ammunition ready for Rh130, and there was not even a single, test shot fired from it yet.

As for invasions that are mythical, well, I will put it that way, check what happend in Europe few years ago, you might be surprised. ;)

 

By the way, if someone is interested, here are official US Army renders of how Stryker and M1 will look like with their active protection systems installed.

 

 

Note one thing, in this render, M1A2SEP have it's special armor modules removed only for presentation purpose, normally vehicle will have it's special armor installed in real life.

 

 

And here some additional informations about active protection systems development, including MAPS.

[pipyn1970 19]

I would like the drivers slot of IFV's to be fitted out like the PUMA IFV. With PiP camera views giving the driver almost a 360 of the vehicle & maybe a button that the driver controls to open & close the back door with a camera in the back so he can see when the back is empty or full. Give the commander & Gunner proper PIP MFD's so they can still feel part of the same vehicle instead of having a full screen of the sights. Lower res images for the gunner & commander will be fine as lone as they can ID targets correctly. Also I would like the IFV's & tanks to be more able to survive IED & mine strikes as they can now & will do in 2035. Would be amazing to enjoy playing in these vehicles with proper interiors. That's why I think most people will use them in 3rd person. Maybe give us the PUMA IVF, upgraded warrior & a properly fleshed out Marshal type vehicle? Maybe a recon vehicle that can be used as a scout & in the back it could carry a UGV that can be deployed & the "scout" vehicle has monitors in the back where the UGV is controlled from? But if we do go down this route then I hope we NO longer have to listen to the UVG or UAV while we control it from a vehicle or structure.

AI to be able to drive them properly & at walking pace.

If you give an AI driver a command by using a map marker he should get there & stop exactly where you say. Maybe allow us to give the AI driver multiple waypoints all at once using a map or MFD screen? Something like the player chooses the route he wants the AI driver to take & without fail the AI driver will follow it exactly once the player clicks "send" to send it to the driver?

AI to use the right ammo for the right job.

AI NOT to turn out if the player does.

Vehicles to have more ammo to meet real life ammo states.

Maybe use blast proof seats so if the vehicle is hit with a mine, IED or something its more likely the vehicle would lose a track or a mobility kill & the player will be safe. Maybe a little concussed but wont die. Vehicle then has to be repaired by a recovery vehicle maybe?

Allow the players to wanna play in 1st person, turned in within Urban areas & still be able to know what's going on.

Give the vehicles the DataLink from the JETS DLC also.

Allow the backs of IFV to have viewable ammo & AT weapons maybe?

Put 1 monitor in the back with 4 PiP feeds on it so they can see what they are running into.

Put a red light in the back of IFV's maybe?

All vehicles that IRL can travel up 45 & 60 degree hill with power to be able to - At the moment I find they seem to be to sluggish going up hills.

Give the option to "deploy" camo netting once the vehicles are parked up. The Warrior has small poles on the vehicle that the net poles fit into.

Move the gun or the commanders sight on the NAMER IFV. At the moment the gun obscures the sight as far as I can remember.

Don't bother giving us Marine vehicles unless there are ships to carry out ops from with them, your just wasting your time I think. 

[pipyn1970 19]

On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 6:07 PM, hellfish6 said:

I appreciate your point of view, but I think interiors for tanks would be a massive waste of resources. Think of all the time, effort and resources to make something that will not even be used in a fight - they would be entirely cosmetic.

I don't mean to be rude mate but have you tried being a driver in either a Marshal or tank in a MilSim unit for a full mission? if your head is out you get killed. If turned in you see a letter box. With proper interiors at least the driver could keep his head down & watch his MFD's or monitors. I think its a game changer, but most of the changes people talk about are also game changers.

Sorry if I caused offence mate

[en3x 209]

Everyone likes to point out waste of resources. Well I don't think that interiors are big resource hog. I say that because of Jeeps, Aircrafts

and helicopters. All those vehicles have modeled interior, what is stopping tanks from having one? Its easier to blame it on "takes too much to

make it" argument and continuing driving vehicles in 3rd person.

[froggyluv 2130]

 

 Absolutely agree with above -interiors are imo crucial to fun/immersion especially if you prefer to play  in 1st person. I mean honestly, why have cockpits in planes, just give a blacked out viewing panel like tanks? Driving around in that little slit surrounded by black is about as appealing as walking to work with my VR glasses on (ok who am i kidding thats way more fun)

[BohemiaBeck 305]

Please keep all posts civil and respectful to others. Do not use any flame-baiting, name calling or to get too personal about disagreements or discussions, or there will be warnings handed out with possible forums restrictions.

 

Remember to keep all posts on topic please.

 

Thank you!

[zeealex 2029]

Hmm, 'interesting' and 'respectful' discussion there, Damian...

Back on topic; Interiors, to me would be absolutely lovely, I don't drive tanks much but i think it would feel a lot less claustrophobic and a lot more cool if there were an interior to look around, it would make things much more immersive and much more cohesive I guess?

would be nice, but not exactly a deal breaker if the rest of it is good enough. 

[arkhir 135]

4 hours ago, zeealex said:

Back on topic; Interiors, to me would be absolutely lovely, I don't drive tanks much but i think it would feel a lot less claustrophobic and a lot more cool if there were an interior to look around, it would make things much more immersive and much more cohesive I guess?

This is literally the most requested feature at this point. I'd be surprised if they didn't introduce it :D

 

APCs have (partial) interiors, let's see interiors for tanks, too!

 

On 1.05.2017 at 5:41 PM, pipyn1970 said:

I don't mean to be rude mate but have you tried being a driver in either a Marshal or tank in a MilSim unit for a full mission? if your head is out you get killed. If turned in you see a letter box. With proper interiors at least the driver could keep his head down & watch his MFD's or monitors. I think its a game changer, but most of the changes people talk about are also game changers.

This is very much true. When RHS introduced an interior to their M2 Bradley, it was a whole gamechanged. While I don't really like being a driver with vanilla vehicles, I don't mind driving their Bradleys.

[road runner 4344]

On 4/29/2017 at 11:16 PM, Damian90 said:

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.

 You can be my hero...

You seriously need to to lay off the " I am awesome" pills Chief, because it's making you look like a complete cyber bully towards newer forum members who are merely excited about a new product. There's a fine line between ignorance and arrogance.


Here are some teenagers you might also want to read up on, they were not adult human beings either, but had great knowledge and experience where it mattered.

Scipio Africanus
Muhammad bin Qasim
Alexander the Great

[BroBeans. 279]

Jesus this got somewhat side tracked, and awfully disrespectful for no particular reason. 

 

But, would love to see some better controls of tanks as a whole, the twitchy movement etc has got to stop.

 

Interiors: First person for all positions, and usable at that. Viewports and PiP for example.

 

Damage model: Definitely could do with some inhancements, maybe a more advanced damage model as an option? (or forced, don't mind ;) )

 

as someone said earlier, manual gear selection by choice would be an excellent feature, not just for Tanks but for all vehicles. Would allow obstacle manoeuvring and speed manipulation a lot easier. Also, maybe add an advanced option, so Automatic is an option.  

[dragon01 902]

I can get behind that. Let us stick drivers have our fun. :) 

[BroBeans. 279]

8 hours ago, dragon01 said:

I can get behind that. Let us stick drivers have our fun. :) 

 

Be busting out the racing sim set up soon ;) 

[Beagle 684]

11 hours ago, BroBeans. said:

Jesus this got somewhat side tracked, and awfully disrespectful for no particular reason. 

 

But, would love to see some better controls of tanks as a whole, the twitchy movement etc has got to stop.

 

Interiors: First person for all positions, and usable at that. Viewports and PiP for example.

 

Damage model: Definitely could do with some inhancements, maybe a more advanced damage model as an option? (or forced, don't mind ;) )

 

as someone said earlier, manual gear selection by choice would be an excellent feature, not just for Tanks but for all vehicles. Would allow obstacle manoeuvring and speed manipulation a lot easier. Also, maybe add an advanced option, so Automatic is an option.  

I dont see much use for a manual gear when almost all tracked, wheeled and armoured vehicles, even MRAPS and general purpose trucks, use fully automatic transmisions. The western ones do so since the 80's

 

For the game itself, it has masive isues with settign up analogue devices for both wheeled and tracked. It does not work well at all. only for one kind at a time.

[BroBeans. 279]

41 minutes ago, Beagle said:

I dont see much use for a manual gear when almost all tracked, wheeled and armoured vehicles, even MRAPS and general purpose trucks, use fully automatic transmisions. The western ones do so since the 80's

 

For the game itself, it has masive isues with settign up analogue devices for both wheeled and tracked. It does not work well at all. only for one kind at a time.

They have automatic transmissions yes, but most auto trans you can force 1st and 2nd to engine brake and manipulate the vehicle a bit better. 

 

Maybe just have a "low-range" feature added, purely to stop the stupid gear changing when trying to drive up a hill. 

 

EDIT:

These ideas are just from a gameplay POV, not necessarily realism. Bc fluid gameplay comes first imho. Even if it is a sandbox sim. 

[iratus 71]

On 2.5.2017 at 3:58 PM, zeealex said:

Interiors, to me would be absolutely lovely, I don't drive tanks much but i think it would feel a lot less claustrophobic and a lot more cool if there were an interior to look around, it would make things much more immersive and much more cohesive I guess?

would be nice, but not exactly a deal breaker if the rest of it is good enough. 

 

On 1.5.2017 at 6:51 PM, froggyluv said:

 

 Absolutely agree with above -interiors are imo crucial to fun/immersion especially if you prefer to play  in 1st person.

 

On 3.5.2017 at 5:30 PM, BroBeans. said:

Interiors: First person for all positions, and usable at that. Viewports and PiP for example.

 

On 2.5.2017 at 8:38 PM, arkhir said:

This is literally the most requested feature at this point. I'd be surprised if they didn't introduce it :D

 

APCs have (partial) interiors, let's see interiors for tanks, too!

 

This is very much true. When RHS introduced an interior to their M2 Bradley, it was a whole gamechanged. While I don't really like being a driver with vanilla vehicles, I don't mind driving their Bradleys.

 

I personaly hold the unpopular opinion that having tank interiors is overrated.

 

How would you use them? And how often? I remember having them in OFP. Some of them in the drivers seat where kind of useful because you could look a bit more to the sides. Still visibility was verry limited due to the small size on screen, so I (and all the people I played with) mostly stuck to the mailbox-slot view. Same goes for the commanders perspective as far as I remember. The gunners view was completely useles, since you could not see anything. Arma3 vehicles might have MFDs for the gunner, but are you really going to look at a small PiP render with lower viewdistance & framerate instead of using the optics-view?

Sure, they would have advantages and they would be cool. It would give drivers something to look at while being parked in a hull-down position for 30 minutes, or we could debate wethever or not the interiors are modelled correctly to how they look in reality (y'all know that's what's going to happen ). It probably won't take more than 2 replies before someone says something including "immersion", and since that is somewhat subjective, I'm not going to argue with that. All I'm saying is if I was to decide what's in the tank DLC, Tank interiors would be pretty low on the priority list.

 

On 1.5.2017 at 6:46 PM, en3x said:

Everyone likes to point out waste of resources. Well I don't think that interiors are big resource hog. I say that because of Jeeps, Aircrafts

and helicopters. All those vehicles have modeled interior, what is stopping tanks from having one? Its easier to blame it on "takes too much to

make it" argument and continuing driving vehicles in 3rd person.

Well "waste of resources" is a bit harsh. If BIS is going to make decent tank interiors for all the tanks, I won't complain (well... maybe a little bit).  But in the end of it all, that's a lot of work for (IMO) not a lot of benefit. I'd rather have them put that effort into other things.

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

Perhaps BIS could create interiors for drivers only? As gunners and commanders would be in their optics most of the time.

[BroBeans. 279]

Before anyone blabs its unrealistic or whatever (not a massive tank researcher) maybe adding an MFD for the driver to see the gunners/commanders view would be cool. Might give them something to look at while they sit for hours. 

 

Tbh I've always loved driving tanks, you get used to the fixed slot view, but it'd be nice if we could look around a bit. 

[redken 20]

Information for modern Programmable Air Burst Munition (PABM) / Multipurpose Munition:

 

Rheinmetall 120mm DM11:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Tuesday14105ewert.pdf

http://dtic.mil/ndia/2009/fuze/IVAleonhardt.pdf

 

Rheinmetall 30/35mm KETF/AHEAD:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009/gunmissile/7923paulissen.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005garm/tuesday/vanmeerten.pdf

http://dtic.mil/ndia/2004guns/wed/buckley.ppt

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a372821.pdf

 

Bofors 40/57mm 3P:

http://dtic.mil/ndia/2003/gun/boren.pdf

 

Orbital ATK 30mm PABM-T:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008/gun_missile/6360ElmerErik.pdf

 

Orbital ATK PABM video with Gunny! (R. Lee Ermey):

 

 

[McQuade 10]

[McQuade 10]

 

 

[Vasily.B 529]

About interiors...
Its getting very boring topic, and idea itself is very useless. Before BIS would improve PIP there is NO SENSE of applying the interiors.

Only good option would be small black boxes with rectangle holes in which you could look around - DRIVERS SEATS. Right now Driver can look only through one vision port - in all models driver station is equipped in 3 vision ports, while only one is available for player driver.

When i was writing black boxes it wasnt metephoric - create one box, with very dark textures, so it would not distract view, and it will be best solution - not CPU or GPU heavy, not much to work on it, and satysfying for players. For Night vision there could be small screen inside this box.

BTW in real tank, driver station is also very dark, distracting lights isnt cool, but some 2 lighting diods in dark interior could be cool addition to driver's control panel.

[R3vo 2652]

16 hours ago, Vasily.B said:

About interiors...
Its getting very boring topic, and idea itself is very useless. Before BIS would improve PIP there is NO SENSE of applying the interiors.

Only good option would be small black boxes with rectangle holes in which you could look around - DRIVERS SEATS. Right now Driver can look only through one vision port - in all models driver station is equipped in 3 vision ports, while only one is available for player driver.

When i was writing black boxes it wasnt metephoric - create one box, with very dark textures, so it would not distract view, and it will be best solution - not CPU or GPU heavy, not much to work on it, and satysfying for players. For Night vision there could be small screen inside this box.

BTW in real tank, driver station is also very dark, distracting lights isnt cool, but some 2 lighting diods in dark interior could be cool addition to driver's control panel.

 

I disagree for a simple reason. Consistency.

Helicopters, jets, cars, heck even boats have an interior. I don't see why tanks should be different. If you think interiors for tanks are useless, then let BIS make them useful, same as with jets and helicopters.

[The Man Without Qualities 110]

I simply need interiors - because it adds tons of RL immersion.

As said before, driver has just 1 small window to look straight foreward, not left not right.

This is war behind we had in previous ArmA versions. This is pure laziness by BIS, nothing else.

Running an ArmA server with disabled 3rd person view is simply impossible because of this.

At the other seats, a lot of status indikators and controls could be placed.

And having VR support is pointless if not ALL vehicles having interiors.