Armor Warfare

[Kaivo 0]

1 AT4 rocket takes down t-72 ,when u hit tower.

Tower armor is very slim.

I was in Iraq, the Americans talked about things in the tanks and showed.

[mr.g-c 6]

1 AT4 rocket takes down t-72 ,when u hit tower.

Tower armor is very slim.

I was in Iraq, the Americans talked about things in the tanks and showed.

Yes a underpowered export T72, which were used in Iraq....

I doubt a 420mm RHA capable thing takes out a regular/modern T72... not to speak of ERA Versions (which im missing in Arma2 somehow - Georgia, Ossetia, Russia all have that ERA-Tiles cluttered Tanks you saw in the footages )

[Alex72 1]

AWESOME VIDEO!!![/url]

That is the way to go BIS.

One thing i miss in ArmA as well is how the tanks suspension wobbles the tank when moving - stopping. I know there is some in ArmA but watching any video of real ones they wobble pretty hard at hard stop, start. Would look and feel nicer for sure with some better suspension.

The damage model... wow, awesome.

Alex

[Kaivo 0]

Inside, there is so narrow, if you can get the shot you're already almost dead

Active armor is no probleb to AT4 now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IH5nFAi16E

In Arma there was old shitty t-72.

[mr.g-c 6]

Active armor is no probleb to AT4 now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IH5nFAi16E

In Arma there was old shitty t-72.

Well the new HEAT-HP Warhead might have a bit better penetration (500mm RHA vs. 420mm RHA) as well as a short rod to set-off the ERA-Tiles, still nothing to beat any modern MBTs - its a "light" AT-Weapon and its meant to defeat light to medium targets.

The T72 in Arma1 was anyway a mix-in between whatever types - DshKm and such unrealistic stuff.

Still normal T72s (even the oldest ones) would AFAIK resist a AT4 - only the Export Version that Iraq got had a very weak armor (as well as other downsides).

Various sources claim that even the oldest T72 had like 500mm RHA Armour at the Turret (nothing to resist any medium or even heavy AT-Weapon though).

[wipman 1]

Hi, the only thing that annoys me of the ground vehicles that i've

seen from the ArmA2, it's how blured the camo pattern is, here

it's an example on how clearly marked the dirts of the camo scheme

are:

AA7V.

M1A1 Abrams.

T-84 Oplot.

M-998 HMMWV.

As you can see, the camo pattern is not blured on the real ones,

and what offers the concealment it's the tone (brightness) of

the colours chosen; now... if you compare the real ones with

what we've seen booth in the ArmA and ArmA2 images... it's

clear that the ones in the game are not painted in a realistic way.

This could had been improved; but now it's too late. Let's C ya

[hund 0]

Although I am not entirely disagreeing with you on the point of blurred camo schemes, it is worth noting that vehicles in active field duty tend to get pretty messy pretty fast.

The same goes for soldier by the way. Once you have spent a week in the field you pretty much look like the terrain around you, and this is actually a big plus.

But still, you might actually have a valid point, I am not sure.

[wipman 1]

Hi, just check the camo pattern scheme... look at any vehicle's

dirts and you'll notice that the brown (on the yankee vehicles) is

not the one that they use in the real life, same for the green; but

that's not all, the thing it's that the pattern scheme it's too blured.

That may be good for distant LODs for difficult their recognition on

the distance; but at shorter distances... (like 1St to 4Th LOD) it

looks bad or not as good as it could.

Other thing that worries me and that i don't have any info on it,

are the vehicle interiors, will the vehicles have 'em?, the tank drivers,

the gunners or the commanders?; and what about the zoom?, will

they have a small zoom? (the driver looking thru the hatch) to help

to recognice possible hostiles in the tank's way?. The AI is not that

good scanning for targets as commander or gunner, so a little help

when we're driving the tanks, will be very handy if the AI keep

acting in the same way when operating armoured vehicles. Let's C ya

[7 0]

words

No, there won't be vehicle interiors except for open vehicles (of course) like the HMMWV.

[wipman 1]

Hi, buah man, i hope that you be wrong on that... the vehicle interiors

was one of the very good things on the OFP and will be damn great to

have 'em back on the ArmA2, giving more life or feeling if you want, to

the game; if they don't add 'em, then the gave will suck a bit more. Let's C ya

[dentist guba 0]

i don't really understand the (supposed) lack of tank interiors, i personally would have accepted OFP aircraft cockpits if it meant there would be interiors for all vehicles.

[PhilippRauch 0]

I think the camo on the vehicles is not like the 'real' camo to make it fit into the ArmA 2 Terrain, which is also not 'real' ... thats my guess, because if you put on the 'real' camo on a vehicle in ArmA it will stand out like a sore in the ArmA terrain...

[mr.g-c 6]

I think the camo on the vehicles is not like the 'real' camo to make it fit into the ArmA 2 Terrain, which is also not 'real' ... thats my guess, because if you put on the 'real' camo on a vehicle in ArmA it will stand out like a sore in the ArmA terrain...

Hi Phillip, i think he has a point.

Thats why i always was a fan of Matecks M1A1 tank for Arma - that NATO Woodland camo was brilliant there.

To much blurring is simply not realistic and together with to strong metal shaders looks even worse. In Arma2 the Tanks almost getting white/grey at some spots....

So BIS should really look at some of his posted pics and maybe find a middle-way.

[mr.g-c 6]

To revive this:

Looking at most actual Arma2 "alpha/beta" Footage (the one released yesterday in czech TV) these are the points we can see:

- No Tank FCS/Laser. :rolleyes::mad::(

Not even a small Laser which sets proper elevation for Main-Gun/Coaxial MG => Totally World-War2 Style remains => Tank battles completely useless. (how can you ever win against AI on longer distances? )

- No Tank interiors like assumed before => No immersion and a fcked up view when playing realistically without 3rd Person view :(:(

Now those are already two pretty heavy negative points, so i hope there will be at least a proper penetrations system.

I really wonder where's the point here?

Not only is there not a single advantage from the cut-off cash-cow Arma1, no its even worse since its still a "step-back" from OFP1 (in terms of missing tank interiors) - the game BIS wants to make a true successor to.

Not enough time/manpower maybe?

Sorry but where the point in making head-wobble effects instead? (i can assume that this was some pretty heavy work/engine changes too)

I'm sorry but i have no understanding at all for this decisions.

Solutions?

Wait for community to fix it? -> Hopefully they will years after the tools get released fix that (if there are even the possibilities available by configs/models/scripting).

Should be no pure rant against Arma2, just try to express my disappointment regarding that area of the game. :(

Edited April 12, 2009 by mr.g-c

[sparks50 0]

Another issue in Armed Assault is the crew AI. In OFP you could actually control these properly, but something was lost in conversion. To control the AI crewmen in Armed Assault is just big pain.

[MQ-9 Reaper 10]

Should be no pure rant against Arma2, just try to express my disappointment regarding that area of the game. :(

Same here...

MBTs are king of the battlefield they should get a little more respect.

Now this is immersion and realism :

Steelbeasts pro pe :

,

, vid 3

even steelbeasts "old" :

:p

j/k, I know steelbeasts is NOT a game, it is an expensive armor simulator.

But I wish we had at least a laser and thermals for armor in Arma II.

[Mafia101 0]

Same here...

MBTs are king of the battlefield they should get a little more respect.

Now this is immersion and realism :

Steelbeasts pro pe :

,

, vid 3

even steelbeasts "old" :

:p

j/k, I know steelbeasts is NOT a game, it is an expensive armor simulator.

But I wish we had at least a laser and thermals for armor in Arma II.

Wow nice videos, yeah interiors and laser/thermal stuff is awsome :) They should add them in Arma2 but I will buy it even without it, and maybe they can add them in updates.. ;)

[Spetz 0]

I hope BIS take an Idea from the Realistic Tank fire control system made by nonwonderdog, and implement a similar system, you will then actually need some skill before you run a gun in a tank

[Baff1 0]

I'm very keen to see ATGM's in this game.

Soviet tanks hold the range advantage over NATO tanks and the penetration advantage over NATO ammunition by using ATGMs fired from their main guns.

I'd like to see this modelled.

[Spetz 0]

I'm very keen to see ATGM's in this game.

Soviet tanks hold the range advantage over NATO tanks and the penetration advantage over NATO ammunition by using ATGMs fired from their main guns.

I'd like to see this modelled.

are you talkting about the AT-11 sniper that the T-90 shoots, it got like 6km range with hit probability of 80%, while the M1 got like 3km range with its gun, with a hit probability of like 90%

AT-11 got like 700-750 mm RHA penetration values, while the M1 has like 1000 RHA value, So you gotta use like 2 to take out a M1.

T-90 armour is like

vs APFSDS: 550 mm + 250-280mm with Kontakt-5 = 800-830mm

vs HEAT: 650 mm + 500-700mm with Kontakt-5 = 1,150-1,350mm

I didn't see Kontakt-5 on the T-90 from the screen shots, is it visible like plates or its a built in system?

[Baff1 0]

Open source info would suggest...

M1 sabots have around 540-680 RHA (depending on generation) penetrations at 2 km.

So an M1 has "gotta use like 2" to take down a T80 or a T90 nose on.

(Or just one of the very latest generation sabot to penetrate a Russian T72).

This is much superior to a Russian T90's sabot, which penetrates only about 500 RHA.

This means that modern tanks can't expect to easily penetrate eachother nose on, while from the side, rear or top, all tanks will get their kill.

At11's go from 700 to 750 RHA's, 650-700 vs ERA at 5km.

They can be fired from T64, T80, T72, T90.

A 3km range advantage with a 12 second flight time for the missile means, in open ground such as a desert or a moor, a stationary Soviet tank with an 80% hit rate can expect to land 12 hits on an Abrams traveling at 60 Km/h before it gets into firing range.

If the Soviet tank is moving away, it can expect to hit far more than 12 times before an M1 is able to close the gap, if indeed it is able to at all...

Ukraine also makes a 125mm Kombat ATGM which has a top down attack at 5km.

Ukrainian tanks are not as well armoured as Russian ones.

The ERA is all external as far as I can tell.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/t90%20era/PantherF59/01020126421900.jpg

I think tank launched guided missiles will fit intuatively with this games engine.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Baff1

[Spetz 0]

The BIS T-90 doesn't have ERA,

http://www.arma2.com/images/stories/vehicles/tracked/arma2_vehicles_tracked_T90.jpg

Wouldn't the AT-11 need something to guide it that far? like the Isreali LAHAT can be guided by a UAV, while the tank can just fire it, Or Hunter-Killer system, where one tank tracks the tank while the other tank shoots it. (irrc T-84 has that, i think?)

[mr.g-c 6]

The BIS T-90 doesn't have ERA,

http://www.arma2.com/images/stories/vehicles/tracked/arma2_vehicles_tracked_T90.jpg

Wouldn't the AT-11 need something to guide it that far? like the Isreali LAHAT can be guided by a UAV, while the tank can just fire it, Or Hunter-Killer system, where one tank tracks the tank while the other tank shoots it. (irrc T-84 has that, i think?)

AFAIK ERA-Tiles are integrated in front hull at T90... i'm not sure though and to lazy to look in my data now....

Maybe search with Google?

[Pyronick 21]

*hint* BIS should annexate eSim Games *hint*

[Spetz 0]

AFAIK ERA-Tiles are integrated in front hull at T90... i'm not sure though and to lazy to look in my data now....

Maybe search with Google?

Yea i think it might be the Kontakt-5 ERA, it supposed to look built in i guess

T-90 with Kontakt-5 ERA

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Indian_Army_T-90.jpg

BIS T-90

http://www.arma2.com/images/stories/vehicles/tracked/arma2_vehicles_tracked_T90.jpg

T-90 (don't know what type of ERA

http://media.photobucket.com/image/t90%20era/PantherF59/01020126421900.jpg