Tank Desant

[kremator 1065]

No matter it be into battle or from point A to B in real life you will never see Marines doing that, period.

"Never" is such a strong word...

http://media.photobucket.com/image/riding%20on%20abrams/Blue387/DM-SD-04-11399.jpg

Vandrel pwned

[Apocal 10]

Vandrel pwned

Now that novelty has worn off a bit, that pic does very little to refute Vanderal's overall point; it was taken during that awkward phase when the actual fighting was clearly over, yet the safety mentality still hadn't set back in, a unique convergence of factors which allowed them to do stupid shit like ride a tank for no apparent fucking reason.

[Inkompetent 0]

Riding on top of other vehicles is such a situational thing I do agree it would be nice if it was possible.

I think most of us have seen pictures from Afghanistan with Soviet soldiers riding on top of their BTR-70 APCs, since they expected to live longer if they sat on top and could jump off and scuttle to cover, than if they sat inside and got hit by an RPG.

Riding an armoured vehicle is a thing of convience. Do you lack other transport? Well, then why don't ride on top of the vehicles you *do* have around? Sure, you are exposed, but you don't intend to ride it into battle.

[Apocal 10]

I think most of us have seen pictures from Afghanistan with Soviet soldiers riding on top of their BTR-70 APCs, since they expected to live longer if they sat on top and could jump off and scuttle to cover, than if they sat inside and got hit by an RPG.

That and the BTR has questionable mine protection and likes bursting into flames almost as much as my matches do.

[Inkompetent 0]

Yep. Burned as quickly and nicely as a BMP-1/2 getting hit in its rear doors with incendiary ammunition.

[Vandrel 10]

/5char

Edited September 10, 2011 by Vandrel

[Inkompetent 0]

Still, the point of necessity comes again. Just because a rulebook somewhere says that you shouldn't do something, would it mean that soldiers won't do it anyway?

As you say they had trouble getting soldiers to do the stuff the way they should for maximum safety, which means they did it, which means it *does* have a place in ArmA since it is (at that time) actually used, permitted or not by dudes with more chevrons and medals than you as a grunt.

Heck, look at construction workers as an example from everyday life. They have LOTS of safety rules to work by in most countries, still they fail to abide to them time after time after time, people dying in accidents because they didn't give a shit about the safety rules for one reason or another.

NORG (Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay) clearly states that let people do whatever people can do in real life. If it is dangerous and stupid to do in real life it should be so in the game as well. Let people ride vehicles if they want to, and let them take the consequences for it.

[Apocal 10]

snip

Relax, I was just giving you shit because like the fourth image on google image search "marines riding tank" pops that pic up. Better me than one of our, shall we say, less well-traveled posters who'd honestly try to argue the point.

NORG (Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay) clearly states that let people do whatever people can do in real life. If it is dangerous and stupid to do in real life it should be so in the game as well. Let people ride vehicles if they want to, and let them take the consequences for it.

While I certainly see your point, I disagree that this is something that could be adequately covered by NORG. People rode (and still ride) on top of vehicles such as BTRs and BMPs because having a four or five times greater probability of being shot or otherwise perforated is preferable to being burned alive. Unless the game adopts some bizarre form of in-game punishment for a particularly horrible death, players will not be presented with a realistic tradeoff of decisions. Instead it will be one of the endless "cool features" that modders spend weeks perfecting, but players take only seconds rejecting.

And creating an armored vehicle with only desant passenger positions (to simulate real life employment) would just piss everyone off after the second time they got scrapped off the vic by small arms or shrapnel.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Apocal

[Vandrel 10]

/5char

Edited September 10, 2011 by Vandrel

[Inkompetent 0]

@ Apocal

Very true. The other end of it all need to be modelled too, like the mentioned burning, or the effects of overpressure, spalling inside of the vehicle, and the blinding flame of the molten metal jet of a shaped charge penetrating, as well as increased fatigue from riding on top in uncomfortable positions compared to inside seats.

The more that can be and is modeled though, the better. Although I guess fixing the crap-ton of other unfinished features (like the Javelins, use of especially heavy sniper rifles, proper sights for M203 and GP-25, vehicle damage system, fire control computer in the AFVs and tanks, etc) is higher on the priority list, getting to stuff like this would be very, very nice for a more immersive battlefield.

@ Vandrel

And what if the commander of an overfull AAV-7 (assume other vehicles are disabled) would make the decision to allow troops to ride on top of it, just to get them out of a kill zone from which they will have a much higher risk of dying if moving on foot since they can't move fast enough. Would a vehicle commander NEVER make that decision because it's against the SOP even though logic says it is the best decision for that moment?

Edited July 29, 2009 by Inkompetent

[Vandrel 10]

/5char

Edited September 10, 2011 by Vandrel

[Apocal 10]

Now we are comparing the Marines and ArmA2 "Ultimate Military Simulator" to construction workers so video gamers can do whatever they want in a game that is supposed to portray the Marine Corps?

Once again, not disagreeing with you overall point, but there is another non-fictional force depicted in ArmA2, noted for uneven quality, a lack of professional NCOs (and adult supervision in general) and more than occassional gear that does not do the job it's supposed to.

@ Apocal

Very true. The other end of it all need to be modelled too, like the mentioned burning, or the effects of overpressure, spalling inside of the vehicle, and the blinding flame of the molten metal jet of a shaped charge penetrating, as well as increased fatigue from riding on top in uncomfortable positions compared to inside seats.

Hmm, you got things exactly right, but missed my point. People who ride on top of APCs rather than under armor do so (generally) because it's preferable to be exposed to small arms and shrapnel (and probably still killed or wounded by a mine strike), in exchange for not being trapped in a burning vehicle. They can mitigate the risk of ambush riding outside by keeping alert, with weapons ready. They can do nothing against mines from the inside.

It's probably an irrational decision, as more are killed by small arms than would be by mine/RPG strikes on their vic, but I can very strongly emphathise with it.

The more that can be and is modeled though, the better. Although I guess fixing the crap-ton of other unfinished features (like the Javelins, use of especially heavy sniper rifles, proper sights for M203 and GP-25, vehicle damage system, fire control computer in the AFVs and tanks, etc) is higher on the priority list, getting to stuff like this would be very, very nice for a more immersive battlefield.

Yes. Like I said, it'd be a cool feature for all of four screenshots, an intro and two respawns. After that people would stop doing it, because dead is dead in ArmA, whether you bleed to death or burn to death.

[kremator 1065]

Sorry Vandrel ..... just messing with ya !

Good debate here. I say lets get the addon that allows us to do this first of all!

[spamurai 3]

I don't think you'd want to being riding "Reactive Armor" into battle.

[frederf 0]

Anything that would make the reactive armor react is about 1,000x more dangerous than the reaction of the armor underneath. That's like worrying about flying bits of sidewalk if someone drops a nuclear bomb on your neighborhood.

[Vandrel 10]

I don't think you'd want to being riding "Reactive Armor" into battle.

Not just the armor from The Abrams but also the EAAK from the AAV which has been linked to causing cancer through cadmium which can easily flake off the armor. Marines are required to wear respirators and special suits when putting the armor on the AAV's. The Government doesn't like to admitt to that one though, imagine that. Don't bother me though cause I sure as heck claimed it through the VA :cool: