What do you *HOPE* will be in ArmA?

[dreday 1]

BTW, there is no such thing as a "cheap export t-80", they are very rare outside of FSU and relatively expensive.  I think it makes perfect sence to give a third world army  t-72s and BMPs, because that's what they are likely to have in real life...

Peace,

DreDay

Yes exactly. T-80 was probably only exported to MAYBE East Germany (i can't remember), but to no one else. It would be retarded to send top of the line tank to some small nation so that it be captured by Americans. I mean did you see USA exporting M1A1 tanks in the 80s? No.

But who knows...maybe Russians are involved in the war and will bring some of their T-80s over to help out their Northern Friends?  

I don't want to steal the thread, but just in case anyone is wondering...

In Soviet times, 6 T-80Bs were exported to Poland for trials. After the collapse of USSR, Russians sold the T-80Us to South Korea, China, and Cypress (each country got a battalion sized batch of 30-40 tanks). Ukraine has exported T-80UDs to Pakistan (around 150 or so). That's it, as far as I know. The market price of the new T-80U is around $2-2.5 million, which is almost twice the price of a new T-72S.

Peace,

DreDay

[herman01 0]

They are right to go with the U.S. Army troops. The Army is more standardized and also in real life has the money buy all the toys while the Marines have to stuggle with very small budget and take hand me downs (i.e. M1a1 and humvees) from the Army and usually have much older weapons inventory, thus allowing for better vehicles to included into Arma. Under OIF funding however marines have been able to aguire M1114s and 7 tons for use in Iraq, in which they will probably stay in Iraq. Also accessory upgrades to their crew served and personall weapons. In real life the Marines do get a quality recruit but due to lack of money the training and weaponanry is a little below that of the Army. Also Marine Expedionary Force (MEFs) are no longer thay are now Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) which are smaller more mobile forces. The Marines were ahead in this advancement in U.S. Military doctrine over the  Army who calls the same type of unit "Brigades of Action" which is the reason for impletation by the Army of the Stryker family of military vehicles. This change was slowed by conservatives mind within who still believed that heavy armor is still a modern battlefield neccesity. An island would probably be invaded by air assualt units(101st, 82nd, 10th Mtn, and 173rd.) complemented with a Marine Amphibous Assault. There is alway need to establish a beach head no matter how costly Amphibous assualts may be.

     I think they were trying for ACUs with the uniform but the colors schemes seem a little off.

   In the video you can kinda see what almost looks like another m163 vulcan but it has the hull design of the ADATS. So I have no idea what it is. If any one does please tell me.

Also many countrys use the M1A1 and M1A2 to include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Austraila, UAE, and Kuwait.

Most countrys also choose just upgrade their Russian Tanks as opposed to buying brand new T-80s. So I agree with previous stament of smaller economy country just uisng T-72s and etc. Russians sell some great products a rock bottom prices.

Speaking of Battle Field 2 that came is unrealistic. Two RPGs to destroy a MBT and the M249 SAW is a joke in that game. The belt of bullets goes into the 5.56 magazne slot which you only use incase of emergency because it terars up the head of the telscoping bolt. Not through the feed tray like they should, but when you reload you open the feed tray to reload the Ammo. What kind of Infantry man would only have 2 200rd drums with them only also. Just a little side not to 200rd drums are no longer widley used by the U.S. Military due to AARs and feedback 100rd "Battle Packs" are now more standard. Doesent make the weapon so cumbersome. I love OFP and hopefully Arma for the much better real world qualitys.

[Chunder 0]

Pfft,economy wise, it's very unrealistic that an island the size of sahrani could afford the amount of military gear they are likely to get. Let along the public works needed anyhow.

It's the same with the russian invasion of everon and stuff, hardly likely to invoke a bloody costly war over it.

Somewhere they have to strike a 'balance' as in everygame. BTW I was looking at the Canary Islands on google earth, as a comparable lattitude of Sahrani... As with many islands in the atlantic - interesting!

[GBee 0]

Yes exactly. T-80 was probably only exported to MAYBE East Germany (i can't remember), but to no one else. It would be retarded to send top of the line tank to some small nation so that it be captured by Americans.

Hehe, well believe me when I say that NATO has a plentiful supply of T-80s which they use for target practice.

[CsonkaPityu 0]

In Soviet times, 6 T-80Bs were exported to Poland for trials. After the collapse of USSR, Russians sold the T-80Us to South Korea, China, and Cypress (each country got a battalion sized batch of 30-40 tanks).  Ukraine has exported T-80UDs to Pakistan (around 150 or so).  That's it, as far as I know.  The market price of the new T-80U is around $2-2.5 million, which is almost twice the price of a new T-72S.

Peace,

DreDay

I guess you agree with me that the t-80 is being exported afterall?

There are dumbed down export T-80s without autoloader and things like that.

The only reasons by the way, why i would like to see a T-80 would be working reactive armor and a completely different driving model then other tanks (the T-80 flies through the battlefield since it's a lot lighter then an Abrams but has an about equal horsepower gasturbine engine - atleast to my knowledge) - a T-80 is simply just fast and packs a really big punch and is cheaper then western heavy tanks. It's the most manouverable tank right now that with all the ERA and other countermeasures can withstand quite a lot.

Ofcourse it would be ridiculous for the north to have top of the line T-80s, but there are older versions for cheap export.

It would be boring to steamroll T-72s with an M1A2 tank, atleast they could slap some working ERA (I'm not saying ERA is the endall be all absolute countermeasure to make tanks invulnerable but it helps) on the T-72s for good measure.

[CsonkaPityu 0]

Pfft,economy wise, it's very unrealistic that an island the size of sahrani could afford the amount of military gear they are likely to get. Let along the public works needed anyhow.

It's the same with the russian invasion of everon and stuff, hardly likely to invoke a bloody costly war over it.

Somewhere they have to strike a 'balance' as in everygame. BTW I was looking at the Canary Islands on google earth, as a comparable lattitude of Sahrani...  As with many islands in the atlantic - interesting!

Sorry for double posting but this post is about something completely different then the T80s:

Quote from williams blog:

Quote[/b] ]As for the political situation, the island is split into two countries. The south part is where we are, and the north part belongs to a old-style communist holdover from the Cold War called the ‘Democratic Republic of Sahrani’ which is actually not far from here on another bunch of islands.

I think the north is funnelling all their equipment onto the small Sahrani island from the other islands they have.

[KAOSInc 0]

Please no more autocenter when flying a chopper or a plane...

THX

Bobcurtish

That was due to the V1.85 patch. I think it was due to the autocentreing force feedback script. Flying lost it fun when that started happening and they never fixed it.

I for one complained alot(which nearly got me banned) as I loved flying in the choppers and scourering the countryside with the hat stick.

[Stendac 0]

There are T-72 tanks in the pictures of Armed Assault.  However, my friend thinks that they are actually T-64's.

I've looked at pictures of real T-72's and T-64's and I can't really tell them apart.

My question is:  How do you tell T-64's, T-72's, and T-80's apart?  What physical features do you use for identifying them?

Thanks in advance.

Edit: I'd be nice if Armed Assault gave us lots of background information on the vehicles, equipment, and weapons we use.

[martinovic 0]

@stencdac: those are T-72s.

T-64: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t64tank.htm

T-55: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t54tank.htm

T-80: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t80tank.htm

T-72: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t72tank.htm

I was hoping for some MT-LBs myself buy i guess we can mod them in, but they won't be in the main campaign.

[Blake 0]

A simple, but at least somewhat more realistic armor damage would be great, just that tanks would be easier to knock out from sides or behind. No need for complex penetration calculations, just some simple strenght values for each side of tank. Currently in OFP it's always the two LAWs per T-72 regardless which side you hit. Imagine you'd really have to pray for side or rear shots on weaker AT weapons/guns, that would make things very tactical and compelling.

Prayed that for several occasions and I'm sceptical it will not be implemented.

[dreday 1]

I guess you agree with me that the t-80 is being exported afterall?

There are dumbed down export T-80s without autoloader and things like that.

The only reasons by the way, why i would like to see a T-80 would be working reactive armor and a completely different driving model then other tanks (the T-80 flies through the battlefield since it's a lot lighter then an Abrams but has an about equal horsepower gasturbine engine - atleast to my knowledge) - a T-80 is simply just fast and packs a really big punch and is cheaper then western heavy tanks. It's the most manouverable tank right now that with all the ERA and other countermeasures can withstand quite a lot.

Ofcourse it would be ridiculous for the north to have top of the line T-80s, but there are older versions for cheap export.

It would be boring to steamroll T-72s with an M1A2 tank, atleast they could slap some working ERA (I'm not saying ERA is the endall be all absolute countermeasure to make tanks invulnerable but it helps) on the T-72s for good measure.

CsonkaPityu,

You are very badly misinformed.  Where have you read that T-80s were exported without autoloaders?  Are you saying that the gunners of those "cheap export T-80s" had to load the rounds themselves?  Do you realize that their rate of fire would be around 1-2 rounds per minute?  Why would any country buy them, even if they are "cheap"?  The fact is that those few T-80s that were exported by Russia are actually more advanced than 99% of tanks in Russian army itself.

As for a "flying tank", T-80U does have a better power-to-weight ratio than any other tank in the world.  However, under combat conditions, the off-road speed of at T-80 and M1A1 would be roughly comparable.

Look, in terms of ArmA, an M1A1 would be superior to a T-72.  Yet, 2 T-72s would be superior to 1 M1A1.  In the end of the day, the game would be balanced because there would be more T-72s than M1A1s; hence the challenge for the American player...  This is much more realistic (think USA vs. Iraq) than fighting against some mythical third world island that has more advanced weaponry than Russian Army itself.  If that is what you like though, there is always BF2... How bout em "cheap export» T-90s, MI-28s, and BTR-90s?

Peace,

DreDay

[Stendac 0]

You are very badly misinformed.  Where have you read that T-80s were exported without autoloaders?  Are you saying that the gunners of those "cheap export T-80s" had to load the rounds themselves?  Do you realize that their rate of fire would be around 1-2 rounds per minute?  

A well trained human loader is faster than the autoloader under normal conditions.  However, the cramped interior of the T-80 would probably hinder the speed of the hypothetical human loader. Heck, there's hardly any space for a fourth person at all.

[blackdog~ 0]

I hope those poop walking animations in the trailer will not be in the game.

[Ukraineboy 0]

BTW, there is no such thing as a "cheap export t-80", they are very rare outside of FSU and relatively expensive. I think it makes perfect sence to give a third world army t-72s and BMPs, because that's what they are likely to have in real life...

Peace,

DreDay

Yes exactly. T-80 was probably only exported to MAYBE East Germany (i can't remember), but to no one else. It would be retarded to send top of the line tank to some small nation so that it be captured by Americans. I mean did you see USA exporting M1A1 tanks in the 80s? No.

But who knows...maybe Russians are involved in the war and will bring some of their T-80s over to help out their Northern Friends?

I don't want to steal the thread, but just in case anyone is wondering...

In Soviet times, 6 T-80Bs were exported to Poland for trials. After the collapse of USSR, Russians sold the T-80Us to South Korea, China, and Cypress (each country got a battalion sized batch of 30-40 tanks). Ukraine has exported T-80UDs to Pakistan (around 150 or so). That's it, as far as I know. The market price of the new T-80U is around $2-2.5 million, which is almost twice the price of a new T-72S.

Peace,

DreDay

Sorry, I mean't during Cold War, not modern times. Now a days Russia will export anything to anyone...

[Ukraineboy 0]

I guess you agree with me that the t-80 is being exported afterall?

There are dumbed down export T-80s without autoloader and things like that.

The only reasons by the way, why i would like to see a T-80 would be working reactive armor and a completely different driving model then other tanks (the T-80 flies through the battlefield since it's a lot lighter then an Abrams but has an about equal horsepower gasturbine engine - atleast to my knowledge) - a T-80 is simply just fast and packs a really big punch and is cheaper then western heavy tanks. It's the most manouverable tank right now that with all the ERA and other countermeasures can withstand quite a lot.

Ofcourse it would be ridiculous for the north to have top of the line T-80s, but there are older versions for cheap export.

It would be boring to steamroll T-72s with an M1A2 tank, atleast they could slap some working ERA (I'm not saying ERA is the endall be all absolute countermeasure to make tanks invulnerable but it helps) on the T-72s for good measure.

CsonkaPityu,

You are very badly misinformed. Where have you read that T-80s were exported without autoloaders? Are you saying that the gunners of those "cheap export T-80s" had to load the rounds themselves? Do you realize that their rate of fire would be around 1-2 rounds per minute? Why would any country buy them, even if they are "cheap"? The fact is that those few T-80s that were exported by Russia are actually more advanced than 99% of tanks in Russian army itself.

As for a "flying tank", T-80U does have a better power-to-weight ratio than any other tank in the world. However, under combat conditions, the off-road speed of at T-80 and M1A1 would be roughly comparable.

Look, in terms of ArmA, an M1A1 would be superior to a T-72. Yet, 2 T-72s would be superior to 1 M1A1. In the end of the day, the game would be balanced because there would be more T-72s than M1A1s; hence the challenge for the American player... This is much more realistic (think USA vs. Iraq) than fighting against some mythical third world island that has more advanced weaponry than Russian Army itself. If that is what you like though, there is always BF2... How bout em "cheap export» T-90s, MI-28s, and BTR-90s?

Peace,

DreDay

CsonkaPityu, I have to agree with DreDay. T-80 has never been exported with no autoloader. Thats like exporting an Abrams with no gun sights. You cant simply take out the autoloader, there's no room for a human loader. If you look at side by side, the T-80 is a LOT shorter and smaller turret, thats the reason why they traded off human loader for autoloader.

However, they are export models and are inferior. They are usually equipped with inferior sights and targetting systems etc. I mean look at the Iraqi exported T-72s, they didn't even have night vision!

Also, yes a human loader right now can beat say an autoloader of a T-80, however, the main folly with human loaders is:

-Autoloaders will eventually beat them. Technology can improve and beat human loaders. T-90 loader already beats a human loader. A human loader can only develop so far...

-Crew Training. For a big nation, or any nation, its much cheaper and easier to have a 3 man crew, and easier to not train a human loader. The maybe 1-2 seconds longer reload is well worth it

-Small turret. By incorporating an autoloader you can have a much smaller turret, thus you can have a smaller profile when fighting other tanks.

Anyways finally, I think that there should be T-80s, however only if they are being used by Russian forces that are helping Northern Sahrani forces. This I hope is still a possibility, but...it might not be. I am certain that there will be ATLEAST Spetsnaz from Russia helping, but sending in a full fledged unit with armored support is unlikely and probably wont be in it.

BIS knows that, due to the climate in the world, there wont be another "equal" war. I.E. two superpowers like USA and Russia going at it. Maybe in the future, hopefully not though. As such, lots of people want to have an "Iraq style" conflict where you play as small professionnal and technological army versus a large mass of ill trained and illequipped forces.

[bravo 6 0]

Would be nice if it was possible to insert fog using a triggers or other new tool in certain areas only (choosen by mission makers) without affecting all map and all players.

In ofp if we add fog it will affect all map and all players iqually, but using this new "thing" only in certain areas would have fog and only those players in that place would notice it.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Neat - you could make the forest all misty and whatnot. Good idea!

[bravo 6 0]

Sahrani is a tropical place and this new "tool/thing/idea" would fit like a glove to it.

Was playing coop and remembered that it could turn ARMA missions very mysterious and realistic.

[CsonkaPityu 0]

Yea You guys are right, removing the autoloader isn't doable, i just misunderstood an article i read earlier.

But, I don't know about the T-80s movement. It would make sense for it to move far superiorly on the battlefield, as it is a lot lighter then and has equal horsepower to that of the Abrams. Newer U-M1 models are getting even better engines[they even have airconditioning]. There was a variant produced by the Ukraine that had a diesel engine that might be less manouverable.

Well, i guess it just isn't feasable for T-80s - even older ones - to be in possession of North Sahrani forces. But it's going to be very uninteresting to steamroll T-72s with an M1A2 SEP.

Some more variety in the vehiclepark would be good, i hope we can agree on that.

Quote[/b] ]I hope those poop walking animations in the trailer will not be in the game.

Well if You are so disgusted by the new anims - which even the rather tough gamestar.de previewer, the infamous Petra, liked - You can still make your own, it's not that hard. I mean if not even BIS, nor the community can make the animations You crave then make Your own and we will wub You dearly if You share it with us.

[Ukraineboy 0]

Newer U-M1 models are getting even better engines[they even have airconditioning].

T-80U I believe had air conditioning too. Most modern tanks have air conditioning, it's not exactly a thing that distinguishes it.

[Chunder 0]

SAR Helicopter, with working winch for extracting your team mates in hard to get places =-p

[Marco.A.Aguilar1 0]

Military dogs!

[wolfbite 8]

A pong machine in the bar. And a good left hook. Bar fights are the way forward

[Blanco 0]

I hope for no more bugged commands

Animate, setobjecttexture, combatmode and scripted waypoints to name a few. Please fix them.

[buliwyf 4]

I hope there will be some left-handed characters and it will be possible to lean around corners with all weapons...

Rolling on the floor will be nice too...