ArmA II: The Vehicles

[HKFlash 9]

NEVERMIND!

[wipman 1]

Hi, im very happy with the rotary wing vehicles section; MI-8 MTV,

KA-52 in camo scheme... the MV-22B isn't there (yet) but it'll be

soon i guess; it's true that's a bit sad to don't have a MH-53E for

heavy loads or transport entire sections to/by the battlefield, but

a man is working on a MH-53E for the ArmA so it could be ported.

It's a very big hit to don't have a CH-46E, those won't gonna go

in the 2011, im sure of it, and have one will be just great, but we

can live with it always that we don't want to move arty guns, lots

of ammo crates, uparmoured HMMWVs, LAVs, AAV7Ps or just trucks.

The Venom and the Seahawk or the Osprey can't lift 'em so we gonna

have to live with that as we've always made with the leak of a propper

logistics chain to support our virtual wars and war crimes. But im

really happy with that MI-8 MTV. Let's C ya

[bravo 6 0]

May I ask to the experts on the matter:

Are the scales of the vehicles correct to the real world?  

edit: OR are the vehicles compared to the ArmA2 soldiers?

[MBot 0]

Since we have the Osprey, no CH-46 makes sense somehow, as it is the replacement.

[wipman 1]

Hi, the sense in have a CH-46E it's that the Sea Knight gonna be

keept in service in the year 2011, same as the AV-8BII++, as cargo

lifter and troops transport; but as we already have S70's and UH1's...

we already have the troops transports that we need. I doubt that we

gonna be able of lift any supply or vehicle with the choppers anyways;

so yeah, it's not that important to don't have the CH-46E or the MH-53E

in the game. But it will make sense, they gonna be in service in the

2011 for sure. Let's C ya

[Big-Rooney 5]

Rotary Wing Aircraft:

ArmA 2 features combat and transportation helicopters of both Western and Eastern provenance. Many of them are capable of serving both gunship and transport roles, their armament consists of mounted machineguns, cannons, rockets and iron bombs.

AH-1Z:

The AH-1Z Super Cobra is the Marine Corps’ primary attack helicopter, providing close air support, reconnaisance, point target attacks and anti armor capabilities. It is armed with 8 air-to-ground Hellfire missile platforms, a dual Hydra rocket system, dual AIM-9 air-to-air guided missile platforms and a 20mm gatling gun.

AH-1Z Picture

Ka-52:

The Kamov Ka-52 Alligator (NATO codename: Hokum B) is a Russian made two-seat attack helicopter. The Ka-52 is equiped with dual-antenna radar and is armed with semi-rigid 30 mm Shipunow 2A42 cannon; with S-8 80 mm unguided rockets and 12 laser-guided Vikhr anti-tank missiles.

Ka-52 Picture

MH-60S:

The Knighthawk is the US Marines front-line utility helicopter used for transport roles, medical evacuation and even air support. It is capable of carrying 11 combat equipped soldiers. Easy to maintain in the field the Knighthawk performs well in a variety of roles including air assault and medical evacuation. It is armed with two M240D 7.62 mm machineguns.

MH-60S Picture

Mi-8MTV-3:

The Mi-8MTV-3 (Hip in NATO designation) is a multirole helicopter used to resupply armed forces or insert special forces units. It can also be heavily armed with guns and rockets. It is often used for air assault, direct air support, electronic warfare, medevac and search and rescue.

Mi-8MTV-3 Picture

Mi-24D:

The Mil Mi-24 (NATO reporting name: Hind) is a Russian-made large helicopter gunship also capable of a low-capacity troop transportation. The Mil Mi-24P (NATO reporting name: Hind-D) is a more advanced version of the original Mi-24 designed primarily as a weapons platform.

Mi-24D Picture

UH-1Y:

The UH-1Y Venom is an American medium-size multipurpose utility army helicopter. It is equipped with two external Mk66 70 mm rocket stations and two 7.62 mm miniguns. The UH-1Y is able to carry up to 3 tons of cargo or up to 10 passengers. It can provide close air support missions as well as transportation or reconnaissance.

UH-1Y Picture

ArmA II: Rotary Wing Aircraft

Edited April 10, 2009 by Big-Rooney

[echo1 0]

72 @ April 06 2009,14:09)]Did they really scrap the Sea Knight or is it just not in the list?

The USMC are replacing the Sea Knight with the V-22, and intend to have them all replaced by about 2010-2011 which is when ArmA is set.

[Mafia101 0]

Nice choppers section. I would really like to see CH-53, because it's so cool... but nothing wrong if there wont be CH-53.

Anyway I'm very pleased that BIS added M270 MLSR for US even, if it's not used by USMC.

Cant wait boats section, I'v seen Aircraft Carrier in 1 old interview

[wipman 1]

Hi, yeah CH_123, but that's the theory, as we all know... there's a

big difference from the theory to the practice; in theory, the entire

IDM has replaced the CETMEs by the G36s, but, if you go to the

companys... you'll find that there're alot of CETME L, LC & LV in

service, same goes for the CETME C, which some good C & CV ones

have survived the burn and still touring by the world with our troops.

This can be extrapolated to bigger and more expensive equipment,

like the AH-1W that still flying with the USMC and not only with the

IDM, i bet you a beer that in the 2011 some gonna keep flying with

booth corps, as the CH-46E and D. But, as the Sea Knight is not

on the BIS list... who cares!? we've a MV-22B, so fuck the CH-46E,

im very happy with the rotary wing aircraft list that BIS has made for us.

The only compain that i've about it, are the green

tinted cockpit glasses that BIS haven't made on the S-70 and

UH-1Y. I hope that they keep the AV8s and that allow us to aim

the bombs for the YF-35s with the UH1s FLIR. Good job BIS. Let's C ya

[echo1 0]

i bet you a beer that in the 2011 some gonna keep flying with

booth corps, as the CH-46E and D.

That's true. But units that are near combat areas tend to get the new "toys" so it's a fair substitution.

[Dwarden 1125]

Quote[/b] ]

the Mil Mi-24P (NATO reporting name: Hind-D) is a more advanced version of the original Mi-24 designed primarily as a weapons platform

this may indicate 2 variants of Mi-24

also i wonder if there is NSV (mounted weapon)

as in Kord section there is entry this is NSV replacement and in DShKM section it's mentioned it was replaced by NSV ...

[Alex72 1]

BIS wrote about the Sea Knight before so i took that as it would be in. It probably is though. I think the MLRS wouldnt be in the vehicle section, but it became such a storm on the forums about it might not be in ARMA2 so they hurried to get it up hehe.

It's all good. BIS rocks.

Alex

[MBot 0]

this may indicate 2 variants of Mi-24

There are even 3 Pictures and videos show Mi-24D with AT-3 missiles for CDF, for Russia Mi-24V with AT-6 missiles and Mi-24P with fixed dual 30mm cannon instead of the MG turret.

[ricnunes 0]

While I understand the point that with the V-22 Osprey in-game the CH-46 will be a little "reductant" but I think that nevertheless it should be modeled in the game not only because like someone said before that the CH-46 won't probably be retired in 2011 but mainly because with a CH-46 modeled in game it would opens a lets say "easier way" for modelers to get a CH-47 Chinook in ArmA2 (since it uses a very similar rotor system).

I also agree that's a petty for not having the CH-53 in ArmA2! An awesome and vital bird for the USMC which is very often forgotten in all simulations that envolves helos (and it seems that it will be forgotten once again ).

[wolfbite 8]

Why is it petty that they don't include the Ch-53? Maybe they just decided because they have the osprey that it wasn't essential because the Osprey can be used to move howitzers instead... Nice to see the Kamov in camo finally :P Although I'm hoping it needs to be edited 6 missiles sounds like half a load to me heh.

I must say all the units are looking jolly spiffing so far!!

[ricnunes 0]

Why is it petty that they don't include the Ch-53? Maybe they just decided because they have the osprey that it wasn't essential because the Osprey can be used to move howitzers instead...

Let me see:

1- Because it's my second favourite USMC helicopter (first being the Cobra)!

2- Because it's my second favourite USMC helicopter!

3- Because it's my second favourite USMC helicopter!

4- Because it's my second favourite USMC helicopter!

5- Because it's my second favourite USMC helicopter!

6- Because it's my second favourite USMC helicopter!

7- (and now more seriously) The CH-53 is the USMC "Heavy-Hooker" which means that usually it's the USMC helo that carries all the heavy loads such as Howitzers (like you mentioned). The V-22 is also capable is carrying some interesting payloads but it doesn't even come near to the CH-53 capability! For example the CH-53E can carry a maximum external payload of 14,500 kg while the V-22 maximum external payload is around 6,800 kg, less than a half compared to the CH-53E! This means that the V-22 is a very limited helicopter if you want to carry for example a Howitzer, its crew and its ammo in the same trip and thing that a CH-53 can perfectly perform!

8- Again while the V-22 have a let's say an interesting payload, it definitly isn't the same class as a CH-53 and it definitly isn't a replacement for the CH-53. The V-22 will replace the CH-46 and also have a similar performance in terms of lifting to the CH-46 and NOT the CH-53.

The current CH-53 versions should be "replaced" by upgrading the current CH-53s version to the CH-53K version.

For it's worth I would also like to see a Mi-26 for the Russian side now that we're talking about "Heavy-hookers"! 20 tons of external payload or carry almost 100 soldiers at once, that would definitly re-define helicopter operations in ArmA!

[echo1 0]

but mainly because with a CH-46 modeled in game it would opens a lets say "easier way" for modelers to get a CH-47 Chinook in ArmA2 (since it uses a very similar rotor system)

I think it would probably be easier to import an ArmA model of a Chinook into ArmA 2 than it would be to morph one helicopter into another. Even if they look similar on first glance, they could actually be significantly different in detail to require the modder to make a new one anyway.

EDIT: Ignore.

[ricnunes 0]

I think it would probably be easier to import an ArmA model of a Chinook into ArmA 2 than it would be to morph one helicopter into another. Even if they look similar on first glance, they could actually be significantly different in detail to require the modder to make a new one anyway.

The problem with that is that sometimes this doesn't work as expected. I remember the otherwise excelent CH-47D Chinook from Map Air (which was by it's turn ported from OFP) that had a very annoying problem in which this Chinook was extremelly too sensitive in terms of roll and if I'm not mistaken the guys from Map Air weren't able to correct this problem (again if I'm not mistaken it had something to do with the Chinook's "unique" rotor system). Things (in regard to the roll issue in Map Air Chinook) only started to improve a bit after version 1.14.

Anyway, a CH-46 would solve/avoid such problem and at the same time give the USMC a helicopter asset which is still one of the most important ones today in real life (for the USMC).

[Big-Rooney 5]

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, if it makes you happy disregard my points 1 to 6 and regard only from point 7 downward!

Your 7th and 8th point are valid points indeed.

ch_123 & ricnunes: Please stop before it turns into a flame-war, This is a nice peaceful topic and I don't want moderators getting involved, it might accelerate the situation.

[max power 21]

May I ask to the experts on the matter:

Are the scales of the vehicles correct to the real world?  

edit: OR are the vehicles compared to the ArmA2 soldiers?

It's hard to tell whether or not they are correct just from the screens. Those screen shots are certainly not to scale with each other.

In ArmA, the soldiers were larger than average people. I think they are 185 centimeters tall. This would make them slightly bigger compared to the rest of the vehicles and stuff than you would expect (they were certainly not easy to fit into the trabant).

I would expect that they are scaled fairly realistically. Scaling in 3d is one of the easier things to do.

What are your concerns?

[merlin 17]

I'm very pleased with the introduction of the MLRS, nice to see the US with some long range rocket arty, great job BIS!

my only problem with ArmA 2 is the lack of the Ch-53/46, unfortunately we have yet to see either of these in mod form, which is really disappointing considering their importance in ye olde air cavalry operations.

[POTS 0]

I've noticed that the men are more scaled to the enviroment correctly with all the buildings and forests being bigger and all. But i'm not sure about the vehicles.

[jakerod 254]

I hope there is an LCAC. I was just reading about the 13th Marine Expeditionary and saw that in the description. It would be good to have a way to actually get vehicles to shore so I can stop saying... Uh yeah there was a big ship here five minutes before the mission started that put all these tanks on the island but now its gone.

[bravo 6 0]

May I ask to the experts on the matter:

Are the scales of the vehicles correct to the real world?  

edit: OR are the vehicles compared to the ArmA2 soldiers?

It's hard to tell whether or not they are correct just from the screens.  Those screen shots are certainly not to scale with each other.

In ArmA, the soldiers were larger than average people.  I think they are 185 centimeters tall.  This would make them slightly bigger compared to the rest of the vehicles and stuff than you would expect (they were certainly not easy to fit into the trabant).  

I would expect that they are scaled fairly realistically.  Scaling in 3d is one of the easier things to do.

What are your concerns?

I'm not exactly comparing the vehicles to each other by using the new images in the arma2 web site. I guess i was not quite clear what i tried to say or ask:

If the vehicles are to scale in game comparing to the normal soldiers, houses and from each vehicles in game:

I'm kinda reluctant in the scale matter of the Abrams m1a1 and the soldiers on real life scales concern.

By looking to the following pictures, in game and real life ones, can you see any abnormal scaling error? Or its just my impression?!

When i look carefully and analyze the size of the tank and compare it with the mounted soldiers i notice something is odd and not correct.

ArmA2 ingame m1a1

Maybe its the angle, i not sure.

In my opinion the M1a1 from the in game pictures of ArmA2 looks kinda small, short, maybe compact is the proper word to use.

By the way I thought it would be hard to scale things, but if you say its easy BIS Still have time to re-fix a more realistic size, no?

Edit: typo

[7 0]

Are the scales of the vehicles correct to the real world?

Now that you mention it - that M1A1 is tiny! BIS this needs to be fixed at once!