More Armor to Abrams

[Beagle 684]

Well, those "balanced" Weapons and vehicles where much more badly than what we have now.

One of the "unlucky" decision was to choose an old T-72M as OPFOR MBT and an old M1A1(preHA) for Bluefor.

A lot of the features in game (like mounted MGs operable from inside) would be more believable if M1A2SEP and T-90SA had been choosen.

[Rustman 0]

Would'nt it be nice to come to a conclusion on needed improvements within the restriction of the ArmA engine...

Somethign like ten points that should be improved by the views of some guys that at least have some basic practical knowlege of RL tank related things and form some kind of petition to the devs...!

I have a little bit of knowledge and experience in this area...

[Beagle 684]

Each piece of experience is welcome!

[Barely-injured 0]

Would'nt it be nice to come to a conclusion on needed improvements within the restriction of the ArmA engine...

Somethign like ten points that should be improved by the views of some guys that at least have some basic practical knowlege of RL tank related things and form some kind of petition to the devs...!

I suppose we can all agree on what "atleast basic" improvments that need to be made, The problem in making points is finding somebody who REALY knows what can and can't be done within the restrictions of the ArmA engine

here is hoping for computer aided gunnery and range finding

[Beagle 684]

Just use the AI gunner for that, they have this "integrated" into their heads.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

I just watched the "VBS2 tech.....final" video. There are at least 2 MG on top of the roof, so seems to me that they have a 4 men crew in M1Ax.

The 15 M1Ax limit I meant per Squad/Group. If I remember correctly there are max 60 men per group in ArmA. 60:4=15 while for T80 with Autoloader it is 60:3=20. In crCTI they might find it not fair having 1/4 less tanks per tank platoon, but hey, you can fight infantry with 2 MG while main guns keeps armor busy.

So JUST steal the VBS2 M1Ax!

[Beagle 684]

Honestly...the loaders job was once mine and I don't want to play it in a game.

And you can't use the MG when main gun is in action..who the hell will load it...?

Besides the litte detail that you would soon never hear nothing any more.

Oh and you dont wan't to turn out in a combat situation when things start to hit the Tank.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

@ Beagle:

finally someone with 1st hand info!

I wrote before that for AI it must be scripted that he fires main gun and only after few seconds and no new fire request AI uses maybe MG for fighting the infantry.

I assumed the need to turn out is only present for early M1A1, is there no remote control and video optics for that MG for M1A2 SEP? If not, that steel beast is not THAT advanced as they try to suggest all the time.

BUT

Tank Unit Fields Remote Weapon System

Army News Service - Paula Taylor - May 15, 2006: Ft. Bliss, TX. - It’s safer than rolling across the battlefield in a steel tank and allows Soldiers to fire a remote weapon system from inside the tank without the gunner hatch open.

Members of Company D, 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment recently became the first U.S.-based unit to have the Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station, and the only unit in the world to have it mounted on Abrams tanks.

“The CROWS mount on the tank gives an urban advantage so the tank commander doesn’t have to stick out of the hatch,†said 2nd Lt. Sean Henley, a platoon leader with Co. D, 2-12 Cavalry.

Improved safety is a major feature of the new weapon mounting system. It allows the tank commander to remain inside the tank, permitting him to see more of what’s going on inside the turret, said Staff Sgt. Zachary Balancier, a tank commander with 2-12 Cav.

By being inside the tank, a tank commander can watch their gunner and loader and communicate with them directly versus relying solely on the intercom system, he added.

Accuracy is another benefit of the CROWS system.

“You can put the first four or five rounds on target, versus the old system where you had to walk your rounds into the target,†Balancier said.

To keep the weapon steady and assist with accuracy, the system has two axis-stabilized mounts. It also has a sensor suite and fire-control software to allow on-the-move target acquisition and first-burst target engagement. The sensor suite permits target engagements under day and night conditions and includes a daytime video camera, a thermal weapon sight and laser range finder.

“The laser range finder sends a signal out and back to the CROWS, which allows a good ballistic solution and range to target,†said Henley. “It uses a joystick to maneuver left and right. You can also zoom in and out to see the targets.â€

Ceramic plating is used to protect the CROWS from 7.62 mm rounds and blasts from improvised explosive devices, Henley said.

In addition to being accurate and durable, Henley said the new system can hold five times as many 50-caliber machine gun rounds as the old system.

CROWS can also support the MK19 grenade launcher, M249 semi-automatic weapon and the M240B machine gun.

“There are units in Iraq that have the CROWS mounted on HMMWVs, but our unit is the only one to field it on the Abrams tanks,†said Balancier. “The designers are taking a lot of feedback from us in this gunnery. They are going to use us to set the standards for the other tanks that get the CROWS system.â€

....it seems they learned in Iraq

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005....dex.php

while russians had it since T80

The T-80 was also the first production Soviet tank to incorporate a laser range finder and ballistic computer system. The original night sight is the II Buran-PA (800-1300 meters range). The 12.7-mm MG NSVT has both remote electronically operated sight PZU-5 and gun-mounted K10-T reflex sight. The night sight cannot be used to launch the ATGM. The daysight can be used at night for launching ATGMs if the target is illuminated. A variety of thermal sights is available, including the Russian Agava-2, French SAGEM-produced ALIS and Namut sight from Peleng. Thermal sights are available for installation which permit night launch of ATGMs. There are thermal sights available for installation which permit night launch of ATGMs.

and autoloader since T72

[xnodunitx 0]

I just watched the "VBS2 tech.....final" video. There are at least 2 MG on top of the roof, so seems to me that they have a 4 men crew in M1Ax.

The 15 M1Ax limit I meant per Squad/Group. If I remember correctly there are max 60 men per group in ArmA. 60:4=15 while for T80 with Autoloader it is 60:3=20. In crCTI they might find it not fair having 1/4 less tanks per tank platoon, but hey, you can fight infantry with 2 MG while main guns keeps armor busy.

So JUST steal the VBS2 M1Ax!

Suuuuure, and induce yourself to copyright infringement and other illegal acts.

It is already possible to have extra crew in armor, it was done in OFP and the addon was the M1A2 SEP, a joint effort between King Homer and Inquisitor.

http://ofp.gamepark.cz/news/pics2/INQ&HOMm1a2-2.jpg This is an old image, the Abrams has had tuneups since then, but you can easily see the loader having a position. There was also a fourth person in the Abrams in the loader seat on the inside, however they were mostly an extra passenger unit, obviously having a loader would be asking for trouble. The M240 (Somebody please correct me if I got that incorrect) can also be seen aside from the 50. cal, though not useable due to the OFP engine limit.

Armed Assault however supports multiple axis', which means that it is indeed possible to having two working weapons on a tank such as the Abrams, they just decided to make sure to display it in VBS2. If you want proof, look at the AH-1Z, the TSS (Nose sensor) Moves along with the Cobra's main weapon, this may not sound like a good example but thing about it.

There would have to be two axis's one at the center of the TSS and one at the back or center of the main weapon, if there was only axis and both objects linked together, one of the two would spin in a circle but not the way you intend, they wouldn't stay in place and instead spin like a misdefined Kolo (tread roller in O2).

The ability to lock onto a target would be nice, this would not only help tanks but also helicopters whenever the main gun is slaved to the target, letting humans do it as easily as AI, of course this may cause problems with addons of older helicopters in not so modern times.

As for the Armor, well..I think BIS tried to play out balance but went a bit too far, a fully crewed tank can easily wipe out infantry, they wouldn't stand much chance, and with lots of armor..well, you can see the point.

But I'm sure when the proper tools are released and the community can really go to work, that we'll be seeing better armored units and more realism in various area's.

[dm 9]

The 15 M1Ax limit I meant per Squad/Group. If I remember correctly there are max 60 men per group in ArmA. 60:4=15 while for T80 with Autoloader it is 60:3=20.

Which part of "I tested with over 40 tanks and had no problem" didn't you believe/read?

[whisper 0]

By being inside the tank, a tank commander can watch their gunner and loader and communicate with them directly versus relying solely on the intercom system, he added.

Funny, Abrams crew can see and talk to each others from inside?

If I'm not mistaken, our Leclerc crew cannot, they are separated and rely on internal intercom.

[NeMeSiS 11]

EDIT: Forget it...

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

@ wisper:

Staff Sgt. Zachary Balancier made this comment

@ Death meat:

Maybe my fault, I thought this 60 units per squad limit exists and hence never tried to add more to a squad. In editor I never tried.

So in editor I can group 39 tanks to one commanding tank or even more?

[Rustman 0]

By being inside the tank, a tank commander can watch their gunner and loader and communicate with them directly versus relying solely on the intercom system, he added.

Funny, Abrams crew can see and talk to each others from inside?

If I'm not mistaken, our Leclerc crew cannot, they are separated and rely on internal intercom.

Well..I'm gonna speak from the point of view of a Mechanized Infantryman, not a Tanker, but some of the stuff should be similar...I know inside the Bradley, if you are talking just the crew, the Commander and the Gunner can talk to each other if they want, but if the vehicle is on, and, particularly if the vehicle is moving, it's just way easier to use the CVC intercom. Engine noise and the track moving just is way to much to yell over. Driver though, forget it....he's not talking to anyone from his hole without the CVC.

[4 IN 1 0]

being in an old style USSR made tank b4, and my god can that thing go any louder?

i think its not that the US Army learn their lesson in Iraq, but because that there is notthing work as good as such like CROWS?

so what next? a inbuilt TIR system which lets you drive your tank like you fly a chopper?

[dm 9]

@ Death meat:

Maybe my fault, I thought this 60 units per squad limit exists and hence never tried to add more to a squad. In editor I never tried.

So in editor I can group 39 tanks to one commanding tank or even more?

1st, its Dead, thats not so hard now is it, or are you just trying to troll?

2nd, yeah, why not try it instead of constantly bitching about it on here? My 40 tank test was just to proove a point, I know for sure you can have more (I've done something with ~100 tanks, but then formations get a bit testy...)

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

@DeadMeatXM2 (this time I copied)

I can confirm that, I tried with 59 (x3 crew) tanks, works.

But old bug, as you already mentioned, is still present, all tanks are grouped in the default formation, however you place them in the editor, they appear at map in standard formation.

The result is that on small islands a lot of the tanks appear in the water and anyway, you can never really predict where they pop up 100%. I just read once about 60 unit/group limit and took it serious, as I said, my fault.

[whisper 0]

You sure you selected "None" instead of "Formation" in the editor, for each of the tank you put?

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

I never took care because I assumed they appear as I place and they try to keep the assigned formation AFTER game start...will test immediately...

DONE, with NONE they appear as supposed and going then for the default V, big THX

[Balschoiw 0]

There are basic tutorials for Arma/OFP editor. Maybe having a look into them before starting to cry about things would definately be a thing for you Innocent&Whatever.

The error you made is incredibly stupid btw.

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

hey Balschoiw

Usually I start personal vendettas so do not steal my role.

I thought we were over this, but we can continue like this my dear.

And I rely on usually on supplier manuals, not that those community tutorials are not good and I do not honor their work (I bought Murray`s Guide to btw) it is a generic thing that I see the responsibility of providing this as part of the product deliveries.

For this particular case I never even thought about looking into any forum regarding this since I did an assumption beforehand that it must be like that.

If you call me stupid for that - I can live with that, I would say I was ignorant in that issue.

[M. D. Geist 0]

Does it really matter what tanks we have in the game if tank combat itself, sucks?

They have completely screwed up vehicle combat with that silly radar. And there are so many features missing that I've stopped bothering with vehicles altogether.

[Second 0]

Funny, Abrams crew can see and talk to each others from inside?

If I'm not mistaken, our Leclerc crew cannot, they are separated and rely on internal intercom.

Most likely because Leclerc's autoloader, it might have "isolationboxes" too like with new russian magazine-autoloader, heavily modernized T-72 looks quite fresh with that . Because if magazine-autoloader gets hit/ignited and blows up, crew shouldn't die... Most likely be seriously injured (broken bones etc) but still alive.

[max power 21]

I was just playing some evolution in a server with all settings on hard last night... I noticed that the tanks were a lot tougher. Does this allign with anyone else's experience? After the 5th at4 I put into a t72, I was starting to get worried!

[Beagle 684]

News for the armoured branch

I found this on the official german forum:

5142 - Fixed: Tracks were drawn under the bridge

5150 - Fixed: Tanks were not jumping over the concrete ramp

5153 - Fixed Tanks were having troubles driving up the stones

5153 - Fixed Tow missile weapons are guided after they are fired.

5153 - Fixed Tanks were thrown in the air when colliding with some destructed buildings

Tracked.pbo

M113.p3d selections in model config.cpp and model.cfg modifications T72 and Abrams turret elevation and depression modified to match realistic values

- Shilka,BMP2 recieved a higher damageResistance to force tankcommanders to

- use maingun on it, instead of M2.

- soundInsideCoef lowered to 0.2 for M1A1