ArmA II: The Vehicles

[jakerod 254]

Your right. In OPF you could polit the MV from point A. To point B. But you couldn't unload or load anything. You couldn't even land on it.

You could land on it. Although I don't remember being able to drive it.

It would be cool for the LHD to be crewable but I could live without it especially if I got my 53 and 46.

[An-225 0]

It would be cool for the LHD to be crewable but I could live without it especially if I got my 53 and 46.

Cream of the crop of USMC helos really, with the V-22 equal to or following these.

USS Peleliu visited Sydney a few months ago. She had Super Cobras, Harriers, Hueys, Sea Knights and Sea Stallions on deck. Quite a sight.

[Nicholas 5]

You could land on it. Although I don't remember being able to drive it.

It would be cool for the LHD to be crewable but I could live without it especially if I got my 53 and 46.

Yeah, you could drive it, you just had to get to the right spot to get in it, and it moved really, really sloooow.

[dm 9]

I'm simply stating the fact that this is the same engine as VBS 2

Shame you're wrong on the fundamentals then...

VBS2 uses the same branch of RealVirtuality that Armed Assault [one] does. So dont get over excited there....

[An-225 0]

Well, its obvious they are not exactly the same, going from VBS 2 to ArmA...but if BIA could modify the Real Virtuality engine to be capable of people moving within a cargo bay...why do people think BIS can't?

[bobocz 10]

Well, its obvious they are not exactly the same, going from VBS 2 to ArmA...but if BIA could modify the Real Virtuality engine to be capable of people moving within a cargo bay...why do people think BIS can't?

Mayby is the same reason, why MS Windows Vista Bussines are more expensive then Vista Home Basic and Intel sell their Xenon processor for much much more money then normal Core processors. In fact it`s almost same products. ;)

Edited April 12, 2009 by BoboCZ

[=DarkSoul= 10]

T-72:

The T-72, introduced in the early 1970s, is not an evolution of the T-64 but rather a parallel development that proved simpler to produce and maintain. While the T-64 was supplied only to forward-deployed Soviet units the T-72 was deployed within the USSR and exported to non-Soviet Warsaw Pact armies and numerous other countries.

T-72 Picture

T-90:

The GPO Uralvagonzavod T-90 is a Russian main battle tank derived from the T-72 and is the most modern tank in the Russian Ground Forces. The T-90's main armament is the 2A46M 125 mm smoothbore anti-tank gun. It also carries the PKT - 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun and the Kord - 12.7 mm anti-aircraft machine gun.

T-90 Picture

Again these fuel flanks behind at tanks.... These flanks only for distant travel. In battle they are not present there... Clean them... Same simply it is not serious...

[Colossus 2]

It haven't really crossed my mind before, but after seeing 52 pages of pictures from the South-Ossetian war there were only about two of all the T-72s and T-80s with fuel tanks attached. Of course I don't know how many more times they had to stop for refueling in real life, but with fuel support (in ArmA 2) it shouldn't be a problem either with or without fuel tanks.

Edited April 12, 2009 by colossus
typo

[DracoN 10]

Again these fuel flanks behind at tanks.... These flanks only for distant travel. In battle they are not present there... Clean them... Same simply it is not serious...

No this is cool stuff.

Dont cry

[=DarkSoul= 10]

It haven't really crossed my mind before, but after seeing 52 pages of pictures from the South-Ossetian war there were only about two of all the T-72s and T-90s with fuel tanks attached. Of course I don't know how many more times they had to stop for refueling in real life, but with fuel support (in ArmA 2) it shouldn't be a problem either with or without fuel tanks.

In South-Ossetian wa T-90 not used. Russia used t-72 and t-80. At Georgia were t-64 and t-72.

In battle fuel tanks throw.

Can make Russian in fur caps, with vodka and with bears?

[KaiserPanda 0]

Well, its obvious they are not exactly the same, going from VBS 2 to ArmA...but if BIA could modify the Real Virtuality engine to be capable of people moving within a cargo bay...why do people think BIS can't?

I don't know a lot about VBS2, but that just shows up in a tech demo video, doesn't it? Also VBS2 is usualy run in a LAN environment for end users with different standards than gamers. -not to mention BIS and BIA work independantly.

It's probably the coolest thing in that game Joint Ops, and it would be amazing to be in ArmA. Not necessary, just cool. Even cooler than walking around inside vehicles was the ability to cary vehicles inside vehicles out of the box. :D Also jumping out. mid-air. yeaaaah.

Edited April 12, 2009 by KaiserPanda
more to say :)

[Colossus 2]

In South-Ossetian wa T-90 not used. Russia used t-72 and t-80. At Georgia were t-64 and t-72.

In battle fuel tanks throw.

Share typo :31:

[Big-Rooney 5]

Well I just got through looking at a video from YouTube of ArmA II preview by the German Gamestar magazine.

In it showed a fully developed LHD with Crew, the video was still an alpha version WIP video but I think an LHD with crew can be counted in.

Edited April 13, 2009 by Big-Rooney

[1Nightmare1 0]

Just to clarify, isn't BTR-90 supposed to be an amphibious vehicle as well?! It's not mentioned in the vehicle section...

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Yes BTR-90 is amphibious. Many of the vehicles present in ArmA2 are.

[1Nightmare1 0]

Yes BTR-90 is amphibious. Many of the vehicles present in ArmA2 are.

Oh, so it will be amphibious in Arma 2...

[Sniperwolf572 758]

That is the logical conclusion, yes.

[wipman 1]

Hi, Big-Rooney:

The Official Site describes the HMMWV as an up-armored version of the M1114 HMMWV, as has been pointed out by many people, the up-armored version is rarely seen with the side exhaust. The picture your showing of the Spanish Marine HMMWV is a standard M1026 not an up-armored M1114.

This is what i see on the ArmA2 page about the HMMWV:

The High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) has replaced the M151 ‘Willys’ jeep in US Army service. The HMMWV was designed to fill myriad roles, including that of light tactical commander's vehicle, special purpose shelter carrier, and mobile weapons platform. The HMMWV is equipped with a high performance diesel engine and four wheel drive, making it capable of traversing very difficult terrain. This one is armed with an M240 7.62 mm machine gun.

So it don't names the M1114 anywhere; the M1114 it's the uparmoured army

version, the USMC uparmoured HMMWV, it's the M1044. That haves a side

exhaust (in the left side) because it's a USMC vehicle designed to be capable

of disembarq in shores with a deepness of 1'5m and reach the beach. We still

in the same thing; that HMMWV made by BIS is wrong, it haves the side exhaust

on the wrong side, the hood's snorkel is wrong and those vents on the back

are from the army HMMWVs, not from the USMC HMMWVs. So it's 100% fictional.

BIS:

military cars and trucks, wheeled and tracked armored personnel carriers, tanks or aircraft; all of them created with strict attention to detail.

That BIS quote, it's a lie if we take a look at the HMMWV and other vehicles;

the thing is that in the HMMWV it's so obvious that's offensive. Let's C ya

[POTS 0]

Since when did we restrict equipment to a certain branch of the military lol...

[Pirate. 0]

Hi, Big-Rooney:

This is what i see on the ArmA2 page about the HMMWV:

...

...

That BIS quote, it's a lie if we take a look at the HMMWV and other vehicles;

the thing is that in the HMMWV it's so obvious that's offensive. Let's C ya

To me it's not important if the models are 100% accurate. If the exhaust isn't in the exact right place or the camouflage isn't inch-perfect, it all doesn't matter to me as long as the vehicle fits its intended purpose.

That is the applied armor acts like it should, the camouflage works, the handling is as realistic as possible with the physics engine, you can fit the right amount of passengers and the guns work like they do in real life.

If then the exhaust is in the wrong place, so be it! That doesn't make the vehicle less useful in the virtual battlefield.

[wipman 1]

Hi, "fits its intended purpose..." well, that's another history, which is the HMMWV

intended purpouse? to be a simple car? that don't stops 5.56mm bullets and bigger

calibers?, that's it's intended pourpouse?; depends on who you ask i guess, if you

ask BIS the pourpouse may be just be a transport platform to move faster by the

battlefield with a limited firepower or none at all (in the unarmed variant), but if

they gonna do some M1044s, then it should stand some 7.62mm fire and the tyres

should just get flat and allow you to keep driving at 50Kmh or so and like 30Kmh

off road, that's the real HMMWV M1044 pourpouse, now, what or how BIS gonna

represent it in the game it's another history... if we start with a completly inaccurate

model... we're begining badly then. All what im saying is that the model is wrong

no matters which HMMWV version it represents, if it represents any USMC

hummer, then it's wrong because that's not where the side exhaust is placed

and there isn't any USMC hummer that uses/have. There isn't any USMC or

army hummer that have the hood's snorkel as that one, and the army hummers

(the only ones that have those vents in the back) don't have the side exhaust

and the USMC don't uses army vehicles, because they've their own that fits

better the role that the USMC use 'em for. So, again; BIS please, fix that HMMWV

model. Let's C ya

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Hi, Big-Rooney:

So it don't names the M1114 anywhere; the M1114 it's the uparmoured army

version, the USMC uparmoured HMMWV, it's the M1044.

After spending about 10 minutes in google researching I've found out the following:

The Marine Corps purchased M1114s for Iraq and Afghanistan in around 2004-2005. The M1114 has a higher load capacity than older versions of the HMMWV which means they can be fitted with more armour and IED countermeasures, which is why they're using them instead of M1044s at the moment.

Marines with M1114s:

The USMC is also using other high-capacity, armoured HMMWV variants like the M1151 and M1152.

[wipman 1]

Hi, great Da12Th_Monkey, the HMMWV that we've seen from BIS until now it's

not a M1114 anyway but a M996 (unarmoured) or a M1044 (uparmoured) so they

have a wrong model in any case; it looks better than the ArmA model?, yes; but

still beeing a wrong/inaccurate model that i hope that they fix before the release. Let's C ya

[DracoN 10]

Wipman too much free time ?

[ShadowY 0]

You know what is not accurate...the whole story that usmc attacks the Russian Federal Republic armed forces on it`s own.

the retards would be blown out of the Black Sea and the Mediterrian Sea with or without small nukes.

This will end in a total war anyway ...so when the Russians defeat the usmc and navy in the Black Sea/Mediterrian Sea that`s 1-0 for the Russians.

Then they prevently attack NATO at the same time because they would be entering Poland by now also turkey gets hit, so that`s 2-0.

Now NATO starts using nukes and the americans launch them aswell after the defeat of the usmc/navy there.

end game ...that was FUN let`s do it again :p

Edited April 13, 2009 by ShadowY