Mateck's M1A1 (HA)

[bospor 0]

It is probably a good idea to make two versions of T-72: export Sahrani T-72M version and upgraded Russian T-72B Rogatka. This way those who want to have weaker T-72 in game, they can use T-72M. But for those who want to have somewhat balanced tank battles (like original Arma), they can use modernized version with modern ammo and AT rockets for T-72B.

[GatorMarineDiaz 0]

Look, no one is saying a 125mm could never penetrate an Abrams at any range, but what IS being said is that like the way it's modeled here, a 125 isn't going to destroye an Abrams in one shot to the front and probably not with one shot to the flank either. Test it ingame and you will see that a shot to the engine will take it out just fine, just like it would IRL.

To Gedis: I would appreciate it also if you didn't make jokes and laugh about people dieing, a lot of people here have been to war and a lot of people here know people who have given their lives.

[miles teg 1]

Ah geez...we seriously could go on forever about what can and can't kill a M1A1. The fact of the matter is that they can be destroyed and even RPG rounds have penetrated the side (although in a particularly weak spot). Nevertheless, modern Russian 125 ammunition would likely have no problem going through the side. I read some reports of two Iraqi T-62 tanks with 115mm cannons scoring disabling hits to the side of M1A1's that penetrated and injured crew. But I haven't seen that story confirmed so I don't know if it's true. The fact of the matter is that the Iraqi's were using old model T-72's with old ammo. Everything was sub-standard essentially and does not represent top of the line Russian T-72 variants. Likewise Iraqi tanker training was rather poor so their marksmanship was off and they lacked the sophisticated fire control systems of more modern Russian and American tanks.

What we do know is that large IED's and RPG's (when used wisely) can and do destroy M1 tanks. Fortunately most insurgents suck at using those weapons and our tank crews are very proficient at spotting rooftop RPG gunners and nailing them with cupola mounted MG's or their personal weapons.

At any rate, I'm off to go test out this T-72.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Gedis 0]

To Gedis: I would appreciate it also if you didn't make jokes and laugh about people dieing, a lot of people here have been to war and a lot of people here know people who have given their lives.

where you find that i laugh at ppl dieing?

P.S. it just got personal now.

[GatorMarineDiaz 0]

On Topic: There were M1A1s that were damaged by 115mm, 100mm, and even one damaged by a 73mm, these were all cosmetic damage (with the exception of 1 or 2, if my memory serves me right, that hit either the engine or roadwheels) to the external stowage rack and gear that was stowed on the outside of the vehicle, as well as a gunner's sight and other very lucky hits that broke some small fragile external equipment. I agree that modern 125mm ammo can probably damage an M1A1 with a shot to the side, but I don't think the SLA would have modern ammo. Also if you consider that M1A1s have shot other M1A1s in the side of turret, and that Mavericks, hellfires, and TOWs have also hit M1A1s with little effect (some have also devasted M1A1s, so I'm not saying this means it's invincible) I think it would be fare to say 2-3 hits to the side of the Turret and 1-2 to the side of hull would be pretty accurate. When I was using NWD's FCS mod I believe that's basically how he had the more modern 125mm rounds balanced anyways, so maybe Mateck could just add in more modern 125mm rounds as an alternate loadout?

Keep in mind, I haven't gone over the official documentation of damaged M1s in a while, so the exact amounts hit by what are a bit rusty, but there is a list on Wiki from the first Gulf War that is a copy of the official one. I suggest people look it over as it is very informative.

To Gedis: "LOL, someone got pwnd" in reference to Iraqi T-72s being destroyed.

And the rest of your previous statement was done in a very offensive manner to myself, and though I don't know wether or not anyone else was offended at the things you said, this is not the place to be discussing the politics of war. I'm sorry if I come off as pretentious or a "fanboy" or w/e, but believe me when I say I know what I'm talking about and I am not some dumb fanboy. Maybe I misunderstood you, if I did I am truly sorry, I promise I will try not to jump to a conclusion

like that if you promise to watch how you word things

From the very beginning I have stated that the reason it is as it is ingame is because the model of T-72 ingame is an older model and if Iraq couldn't get their hands on modern ammunition you can assume the SLA probably can't as well. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that these T-72s would get massacred. Please try to understand that I am not saying anything about modern Russian and eastern equipment and that I am not trying to debate this, I only intend to explain why, in my opinion, this mod is perfectly balanced based on the tanks and nations in question.

All this discussion of "modern blah blah can prob do yadda yadda yadda to an Abrams" is completely irrelevant as this is not a modern T-72. The evidence shows that old T-72s are quite innnefective against modern M1A1s, as it is in this mod. I have said nothing about modern ones, and until they mod in a modern one, everyone should cease to do so. I have shown evidence for my arguments and if you want to discuss this by PM I will be more than happy to, but I refuse to continue to argue this point because this has gone completely off topic and it is a disrespect to Mateck, T_bone, and NWD, who have each put their work into this mod and have done an amazing job thus far.

It seems to me that the people arguing for the T-72 so viciously haven't tried this mod out as it virtually completely changes the idea of straight hitpoint based tank combat (if you have been playing around with this mod, I probably don't mean you, and if I do mean you and you have tried this mod, I am sorry I have incorrectly accused of something). If you aren't aware, it makes it so the front of the tanks (both T-72 and Abrams) is much more armored than the sides which is more armored than the rear. By this mod's setup a T-72 can kill an Abrams with a well-aimed shot to the rear with 1 good shot, a few to the side, and many to the front. An Abrams can kill a T-72 with 1 to 2 good shots to the front or side of a T-72, and 1 to the rear. If anyone thinks that is unrealistic, knowing that it is an old T-72 with old ammo fighting a new M1A1 with new ammo, you should feel completely free to do so, but discussing why the US shouldn't use DU, arguing about T-90s and modern Russian equipment, and all of this discussion of RPGs being able to "kick an Abrams a**" is all irrellevant.

Sorry for the rant, but seriously, that's enough, if you have something to say to me that you want to debate or argue about, PM me, because I will not continue to argue over all of this on any ADDONS & MODS thread

Semper Fidelis

[T_bone 0]

@Bospor

Thats what we plan to do, but due the real life issues there wont be any major updated this month.

@NoWonderDog

Good to see you ! We would really like to incorporate major elements of your mod into this pack but we decide to wait for your clear permission.

[HamishUK 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Nice looking abramses, these gonna be good looking targets when/if T-90 will be released

The T-90 is a further development of the T-72BM and a cost effective interim replacement to the former soviet unions fleet of ageing MBT's. It's cost effective meaning that it's cheaper and less hi-tech to produce than the majority of modern Western MBT's.

They have one on display at Kubinka. It was very small, cramped (like the T-72) with a few new upgrades to keep her going till the Russians have more money for a better MBT.

I was less than impressed.

[Edvri 0]

I wish to thank Mateck and T_Bone for this great addon

i think it's Great!!

I have a question about the damage when an tank gets destroyed.

Is it possible to add more realistic damage to tanks when they are destroyed? ( Like when the turret gets blown off from the tank )

I hope it's possible to add some more / different sorts of damages

to a tank

[Gedis 0]

good that there are more combat proven soldiers, but, thing is, that you started this discussion, not me. and now i see that you repeated what i wrote

just look few pages back, where you wrote that M1A1 is vastly better than T-72(true)and T-80/90?(is it? O.o M1A2 SEP could be...)

i could quote lots of your phrases showing that you started this, who's d*ck is bigger offtopic.

but i do conffess that i was talking not about ingame, while you were mixing ingame and RL.

P.S. let's remember James Gastovski: "another one bites the dust, with Iraqi war brainwashed syndrom".

MY offtopic ends there, i have said all what i wanted to say, now let's see how you will take this in mind and learn something from what i said

[GatorMarineDiaz 0]

The T-90 is fine for what it's meant to do, and it would probably be very well suited for the urban tank VS infantry environment they've dealt with in Chechnya. Unfortunately for Russia, with her lack of military funding, there are only about 300 total in their army.

I am not sure about this, but last I heard they were having trouble keeping up with India's purchase and producing enough at a time, which if thats' the case I doubt they would be too keen on exporting a handful to a tiny communist island nation. What I think would be most appropriate would be an SLA upgraded T-72, maybe very similar to a T-90, PT-91, or M-95.

Any thoughts?

to Gedis: It was never meant to a be a who's d*ck is bigger, I only meant to give examples of why I thought what I did, thank you for understanding and I am glad this was resolved in a civil manner

[Binary 0]

When talking about how realistic it would be for SLA to have a T-80/T-90, remember that there are other islands for ArmA - and the T-80 or T-90 would be a wonderful M1 counterpart on the Schmalfelden map. So even if Russia would never export a T-90 to a small communist country, remember that ArmA is not limited to Sahrani

[Blue_Flight 0]

When talking about how realistic it would be for SLA to have a T-80/T-90, remember that there are other islands for ArmA - and the T-80 or T-90 would be a wonderful M1 counterpart on the Schmalfelden map. So even if Russia would never export a T-90 to a small communist country, remember that ArmA is not limited to Sahrani

Exactly.

Sometimes i think the people only see Sahrani and nothing else.

I think everybody is free to do what he want.

[GatorMarineDiaz 0]

I never said anything about a T-80, tbh it would be much more realistic for the SLA to have T-80Us than T-90s.

If the mod makers want to make a T-90 I'm all for it, I just think it's a bit greedy for the us to start asking for a T-90 before they've even gotten a chance to finish the M1A1 and other Abrams variants that this pack is focused on.  

[Mateck 0]

When talking about how realistic it would be for SLA to have a T-80/T-90, remember that there are other islands for ArmA - and the T-80 or T-90 would be a wonderful M1 counterpart on the Schmalfelden map. So even if Russia would never export a T-90 to a small communist country, remember that ArmA is not limited to Sahrani

Exactly.

Sometimes i think the people only see Sahrani and nothing else.

I think everybody is free to do what he want.

Who is talking that T-80 or T-90 shouldn't be made for ArmA? Be patient or if You can't wait, do it by yourself

BIS created T-72M (probably) so it should be T-72M. Creating other tanks is needed but it also takes some time.

There will be no updates on our tanks for some time. After short break we are planing to create old M1/IPM1 and T-72AV as a bonus.

[Binary 0]

@ Mateck

My comment was certainly not meant as an impatient comment towards your work

It was mainly directed at the T-72/T-80/T-90 discussion that was raging. Anyway - I've gone enough off-topic, and look forward to future releases, whatever tanks they may be

[Banderas 0]

Mateck, T-Bone first please accept my grats and greets for this nice piece of addon you've made, looking forward for your next releases.

Secondly -maybe someone wrote before- (I'm just lazy to read all the posts - ready to take the blame and bury myself ) two little issues I discovered. At first AI loader does not reload his M240 even if I tell him to do so in the command menu. Second is I've put the USMC sign on the back hull and it cuts the image down a little bit - I only see SMC written on the hull on both sides.

Just wanted to let you know , if you ever have the mood to fix minor things like this.

Anyway keep up the good work!

[Mateck 0]

Mateck, T-Bone first please accept my grats and greets for this nice piece of addon you've made, looking forward for your next releases.

Secondly -maybe someone wrote before- (I'm just lazy to read all the posts - ready to take the blame and bury myself ) two little issues I discovered. At first AI loader does not reload his M240 even if I tell him to do so in the command menu. Second is I've put the USMC sign on the back hull and it cuts the image down a little bit - I only see SMC written on the hull on both sides.

Just wanted to let you know , if you ever have the mood to fix minor things like this.

Anyway keep up the good work!

Yes, we have the mood to fix minor things like this

Here is list of small fixes we have made since v0.95 release:

- changed t-72 armor structural from 15 to 14 so 1 Maverick can destroy it

- fixed loaders optics color

- fixed bug with USMC marking

- tweaked green color in NATO camouflage

- fixed shadow artefacts on markings by adding renderFlags[] = {NoZWrite}; to markings material

About that AI problem. Is he turned in? He should be able to reload M240 while turned out. I didn't tested it before so I may be wrong.

[Banderas 0]

About that AI problem. Is he turned in? He should be able to reload M240 while turned out. I didn't tested it before so I may be wrong.

Edit: my bad I can tell the AI to reload in the action menu...please excuse me...maybe because I tried it with SLX mod. I just test it a bit and then share the conclusions...

[Banderas 0]

OK I checked it, AI reloads the top MGs when I give the order in the action menu and when they are turned out. They just don't reload automatically, and when turned in. Sorry for making some confusion

[Tigernan 0]

Hey Mateck and T_bone... I had a thought. Now I know you guys are getting busy and all but if you ever revisit the HA I was wondering how hard would it be for there to be a Commanders menu option to be able to see what the gunner sees in his gun sights?

I thought about this the other day because in an LAV the commander has a gun sight so he can assist in targeting. I know there are overrides so the Tank Commander can move the turret but I think that would be much harder to implement than to just allow the TC to see what the gunner sees.

SSgt T

Not as lean, or as mean but always a Marine.

[Alex72 1]

@Mateck

I think i found a small bug, or not bug but i dont know what to call it atm - its very late and im tired. But can someone else test to start new MP game (Host not dedi), place a player (not M1A1 - only a soldier) out and 1 normal stock arma T72. Save and start.

I get "you cannot play/edit this mission, its dependent of CH_xxxx_T72". And i just made that in the MP editor. So it isnt a mission that uses your tanks. I just made it with a player and a normal arma T72.

if i put out your CH_T72 everything is fine.

Just letting you know. Someone else try this so i know its not just me it happens to - but i cleared all other mods and tested with your only. Problem still there.

Regards

Alex

[law-giver 189]

Its probably due to the CH_M1a1HA_Replacement addon. Try deleting that addon and try it again.

[Alex72 1]

Ok i thaught it might been that, but shouldnt it replace the stock T72 when i have the replacement on? That was what i thaught anyway. This means we have to turn off and on the replacement depending on what we do. The multicam and weapon replacement addons works no matter if the mission maker didnt use the addons when making the misson - it just replaces them without errors.

Or am i completelly wrong here lol?

[T_bone 0]

Our replacement is bugged ;p Will be fixed in next release.

[MsgtPain 0]

Is there any way to and an Environment sound to the loader, commanders and Gunners Position...

What I mean is for people like me who like realism there is a constant servo whine in the Crew compartment , I tried to edit the Config to add it but have now clue how really ...

I am trying to replicate this...

Notice the servo whine is constant .. I have the Servo and Main Gun Sound file made and they sound wicked ... But I cant get the steady sound..