M1A1 Cheese tank?

[MehMan 0]

Erm, I don't think you can be breaking the law by making realistic armour values...In that case Steel Beasts would be illegal and I don't think LOMAC would be allowed too.

I am fine now that I've seen what you meant, for a moment there I thought that they had actually simulated optics failed due to a shot to the optics, instead of what you said, so much damage to the general turret area and optics and turret itself stops to work.

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

I think you are missing the point there again. Although I can partly agree with your view that it costs time and money, I can not really agree with it being law confirm etc.

I dont see a reason why ArmA should need so many legitimations and whatever other point you mentioned.

Your focus is to justify BISs position, do you get paid for it ?

The simple fact is that BIS implemented a system for armour values and such ... but still fails to have the values realistic.

The earn their money with the copies sold allright, thats how it works. The only problem is that their product is not as it was promissed and not as it was expected by many loyal ofp players.

So what exactely is your point ? ArmA is unrealistic, you first call for "destroyable optics" and then argue that it would cost BIS too much money and time to correct their flaws ?

Well... simple as that, they are the producers of the game, its their job to do it

We are the consumers ... it is not up to us to care about what the producers capabilities are, is it ?

I guess you get my point.

[Dwarden 1125]

if You tired or drunk ...

this topic feels like "M1A1 Chinese tank?"

lol

anyway i wish tank combat gets some noticeable improvements like in ROO

but i fear we need wait for Game2

[Heatseeker 0]

if You tired or drunk ...

this topic feels like "M1A1 Chinese tank?"

lol

anyway i wish tank combat gets some noticeable improvements like in ROO

but i fear we need wait for Game2

I feel the same way, maybe someone will make a more realistic MBT pack... within the limitations of the engine.

[Stendac 0]

Hi all

As I said you cut your cloth accordingly. BIS works under constraints of time, money and the law. BIS has to choose what it thinks is important enough to spend its limited resources on; as well as not break the law. Inevitably some of the constraints lead to compromises.

I will not dispute that it would be nice to have accurate modeling of armor values. So what is you plan to achieve this?

1) First explain how you will pay BIS to do this work or what financial motivation BIS have to do the work.

I can actually come up with a solution to this.  

2) Then explain how you will provide the people to do the work.

I can actually come up with a solution to this too.  

3) Finally explain what compromises you will accept in order not to break the law.

Now this is the show stopper inevitably the armor values I would produce would have to be wrong.  

Solutions

Your project plan is of great interest to me MehMan and [CS]SOBR[1st-I-R].

Failing this why don't you set up a Mod team and do it.

BUT bearing mind factor 3) how would the inevitably inaccurate model of damage produced; to comply with security and arms control laws, be any better than a compartmentalised statistical damage model. Do a cost benefit analysis.

Kind Regards walker

Wow.  Reading this makes my head hurt.

What is BIS's financial motivation?

It's because they're advertising their game as the "ultimate realistic combat simulation experience".  Jeez, it's dumb that I even have to say it.

And can you provide a link or something to show us where these security/arms laws draw the line on what's too accurate?   

Yes, BIS definitely has time and resource constraints.  But don't try to attribute armor damage oddities to a fear of being sent to jail.  

Please note that nobody is asking for 100% accuracy here.  But it would be nice if things were a bit more believable; nothing that would even approach a breach of national security.

[chris3270 0]

The armor definatley needs tweaking. I created a mission putting 2 M1A1's against one BRDM-ATGM and all my tanks did was fire machinegun round at it while the BRDM destroyed both the M1's four seconds.

It looks to me that the games AI is only programmed to fire machinegun rounds at light armor instead of the main cannon.

I hope BIS corrects it in v1.06.

[Second 0]

Erm, I don't think you can be breaking the law by making realistic armour values...In that case Steel Beasts would be illegal and I don't think LOMAC would be allowed too.

Basically when info has been taken from comercial sources it should be fine. Just like with Steel Beasts...

[icebreakr 3157]

Bunch of tech talk here... thing is quite simple: ArmA has taken what OFP already had - a shitty hitpoint system.

So, if you have a machinegun you can eventually totally demolish any vehicle with the persistant small cal fire... thats highly unrealistic and bunch of mil-sim dudes are turning away until a patch fixes the lame hitpoint system.

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

Wow. Reading this makes my head hurt.

What is BIS's financial motivation?

It's because they're advertising their game as the "ultimate realistic combat simulation experience". Jeez, it's dumb that I even have to say it.

And can you provide a link or something to show us where these security/arms laws draw the line on what's too accurate?

Yes, BIS definitely has time and resource constraints. But don't try to attribute armor damage oddities to a fear of being sent to jail.

Please note that nobody is asking for 100% accuracy here. But it would be nice if things were a bit more believable; nothing that would even approach a breach of national security.

Amen !!

Thanks.. just what I wanted to say.

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

Bunch of tech talk here... thing is quite simple: ArmA has taken what OFP already had - a shitty hitpoint system.

So, if you have a machinegun you can eventually totally demolish any vehicle with the persistant small cal fire... thats highly unrealistic and bunch of mil-sim dudes are turning away until a patch fixes the lame hitpoint system.

Aye... I recall playing a mission with BAS addons in OFP some time ago. We had everything done but one T-72 was left.

We had splitted our teams and had some forces on the ground which were pinned down and some in the air.

Eventually, some of our guys flew in with a BAS chopper and shot the T-72 with the Minigun which is 7.62mm !

After the magazine was almost completely empty the tank really exploded because it was hit by so many rounds.

[Beagle 684]

Erm, I don't think you can be breaking the law by making realistic armour values...In that case Steel Beasts would be illegal and I don't think LOMAC would be allowed too.

Basically when info has been taken from comercial sources it should be fine. Just like with Steel Beasts...

Not only comercial, but also from unclassiefied military sources, like field manuals etc. that are avaible to everyone...

I've got a good collection of them isued by German- and US-Army.

The info in there ist much more precise than what you will find in the internet. Combine this whith a few years of own military experiences and you have at least some fundamental basic military knowledge that ist not based on playing games.

But you can't know everything from this sources.

[krycek 349]

Its the game Way,

Somewhere along the line either through design or workaround price, the driver or pilot is taking priority over the gunner and on other vehicles vice versa.

It would seem to be a price over mutiple turrets or something to do with pilot firing ka-50. Ai v Ai maps show alot of no firing, as a result  altho gunner should choose, the pilot/driver ai wants control and would like to fire but option is not avaialble, at which point i presume a big loop of fsm locks in and the AI sit there scratching head .

hopefully fixed in 1.06/7

You have an interesting point.You know thats exactly my problem with armor in this game,it's a 50% chance that my tanks won't fire a single shot into enemy's tanks even if they have clean sight while sometimes they destroy them easily.Perhaps your theory is true and the AI gunner gets stucked on what to do,the end result is that sometimes don't fire at all.

[fireship4 0]

In reply to the original posts, I think I heard from someone on the forums, the BRDM is supposed to be known as a coffin because of its weak armour, with decent calibre rounds (7.62) penetrating i think.

[<>Sharpy<> 0]

15 years ago I served as a gunner in a BRDM2 vehicle. As you know it has two guns: 7.62 and a 14.5mm.

One day, I had a chance to fire my main gun(14.5) at a T55 tank. I know I know, T55 is a fairly old tank, never the less, its still a tank.

After a couple of hundreds runds, went down to inspect the tank. It looked like a swiss cheese. Mostly small entry holes which were created by the 14.5 bullets but when I looked inside, it was a different story all together. Huge chunks of metal were blown out at almost every entry points. This alone can render a tank to a complete halt, when these bits and pieces start flying around inside the tank.

Now technology came very farr since the era of T55. But, I would not like to be in anything that is getting hit by 14.5 armoure piercing bullets.

Remembre, its only a game. If you really want to experience the real thing, there is still time for it in Iraq  

[<>Sharpy<> 0]

In reply to the original posts, I think I heard from someone on the forums, the BRDM is supposed to be known as a coffin because of its weak armour, with decent calibre rounds (7.62) penetrating i think.

It is/was a metal coffin. Not sure, but maybe the new variants have some upgraded armour protection.

[Beagle 684]

In reply to the original posts, I think I heard from someone on the forums, the BRDM is supposed to be known as a coffin because of its weak armour, with decent calibre rounds (7.62) penetrating i think.

It is/was a metal coffin. Not sure, but maybe the new variants have some upgraded armour protection.

All those APCs and Light recon vehicles were never intended to protect the Passangers and crew from heavy caliber gunfire by default.

This 14.7 mm heavy MGs can be considered more of small cannon rather than a MG.

Only applique armor can raise the armour rating, thats why lots of NATO made APCs and IFVs got uparmored a few times in the last decade.

[max power 21]

Hi all

Was recently playing and I came face to face with a BRDM (MG mounted variant). I ordered my gunner to fire and the halfwit used the MG instead of HE or SABOT.

So theres me and my Abrams duking it out across 30m of fresh air with this BRDM and them bammo - it shows up that my main gun turret has been hit and is status red?!

I mean wtf? How can MG rounds bugger up a tank main gun?

I've also had the same with Shilkas. They return fire and then suddenly its status red and everyone is leaping from their tanks - c'mon this can't be right?

I'm probably mis-informed (I'm not an army guy) but is this possible?

Thanks in advance for replies!

Skimbo

By the way you describe the event, it sounds like you were hit by something other than the bdrm. Maybe an rpg or something.

[Second 0]

By the way you describe the event, it sounds like you were hit by something other than the bdrm. Maybe an rpg or something.

I tested it, and he's talking true. about 250 BMRD's 14.5mm rounds disables cannon. About 900 rounds from Shilka disables (or makes crew to bail out) M1A1

[Second 0]

Not only comercial, but also from unclassiefied military sources, like field manuals etc. that are avaible to everyone...

I've got a good collection of them isued by German- and US-Army.

The info in there ist much more precise than what you will find in the internet. Combine this whith a few years of own military experiences and you have at least some fundamental basic military knowledge that ist not based on playing games.

But you can't know everything from this sources.

There can be some legal stuff in the way (or possibility to get sued by military). Like our Mechaniced infatry material. It's designed for selfeducation but if someone, like me, would create&release a mission for ArmA which uses clearly that guide's teachings, i could get in trouble (they even would ban me from getting these manuals ) I'm not 100% sure how clear it has to be, but don't like to test it.

Usually field manuals and such don't have legal stuff writen on them, but i don't know is there some general rules how they can be used. One possible example of how they should be used:

-selfeducation only

-individual ain't permitted to use them as training (or anykind other) material, if military isn't involved in that event on which they are to be used.

Im not lawer, but run across something like this, when some resrvist tries to train forexample his & his friends kids to become uber-soldier (it's good to start early ). It is possible that military can interfere such things or social-care takes away kids.

[skimbo 0]

Wow this post has grown arms and legs!

I wasn't hit by anything else I'm more than sure. It was just me and this BRDM about 30m away - I was just incredulous when my gun went red - I though how can MG fire do that to a tank?!

I can buy the idea that optics etc were taken out - at that sort of range it would be pretty easy. I just automatically assumed my gunners would just blow it up with a HEAT round it seemed it would be a laugh to sit there for a while until the BRDM was turned to swiss cheese by my 50 cal. Not so!

What does alarm me somewhat is this talk of Tanks/vehicles having hit points?! Is this a mil-sim or some beardy role playing game fanatics battlefield fantasy? It makes me cringe to think that if I sit there long enough with a pea shooter I'll eventually be able to wear down a tanks 'armour hit points' enough that it explodes.

What a load of arse!

Finally maybe could set me straight on something else. RPG's - just your bog standard one that OPFOR use in the game - could that REALLY take out an Abrams? The amount of times I've been twatted by an rpg in game and everyone bails out! Grrrrr. If so how? Is it a hollow charge type effect that RPG ammo has?

Thanks in advance for replies!

Skimbo

[Col. Faulkner 0]

Finally maybe could set me straight on something else. RPG's - just your bog standard one that OPFOR use in the game - could that REALLY take out an Abrams? The amount of times I've been twatted by an rpg in game and everyone bails out! Grrrrr. If so how? Is it a hollow charge type effect that RPG ammo has?

RPG-7s in the real world have compromised the rear aspects

of turrets, side skirts and engine compartments of M1A1s.

They are not capable of penetrating the front hull glacis or

the turret front. None however have been hit at random

three times by an RPG and then exploded, instantly turning

into 50 tons of rusty scrap iron like they do in ArmA.

Pretty much all A/Tk weapons since about 1942 have used

shaped charges.

[max power 21]

Is this a mil-sim or some beardy role playing game fanatics battlefield fantasy

It is a piece of entertainment software, and a highly entertaining one at that.

What a false dichotomy... a load of ass, if you will.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Is this a mil-sim or some beardy role playing game fanatics battlefield fantasy

It is a piece of entertainment software, and a highly entertaining one at that.

What a false dichotomy... a load of ass, if you will.

Indeed.

[Metal Heart 0]

Quote[/b] ]What does alarm me somewhat is this talk of Tanks/vehicles having hit points?! Is this a mil-sim or some beardy role playing game fanatics battlefield fantasy? It makes me cringe to think that if I sit there long enough with a pea shooter I'll eventually be able to wear down a tanks 'armour hit points' enough that it explodes.

Well of course they have hit points, it's just a form of abstracting the damage, it's not like you can simulate the stuff at atom level in real-time. It could be a little more complex of course but the tanks work like toys to begin with so what's the point of going any deeper with just the armor simulating if you won't do it for a ton of other things too (which won't be happening).

And no, it's not a real mil-sim, just a computer game. Even if it were, well, even they simplify and omit a lot of things.

[Second 0]

And no, it's not a real mil-sim, just a computer game. Even if it were, well, even they simplify and omit a lot of things.

Amen!

EDIT: They have 2D sprites in Steel Beasts! What kind of simulator is that! Atleast not simulator that armies would use, because of it's lacks in infantry- and aircombat and 2D sprites...