Blackbomber200

Hey, still getting GPU hangs even in 2024. Love to see it.

No I'm not overclocking anything. And I just started trying to play Reforger again after it's "1.0" release and it will still crash after 10 minutes give or take of gameplay. It's crashing even with all settings on low, all AA turned off, Vsync turned on, and the FPS Counter is telling me Im getting 60. Yet it still crashes. I uninstalled the game and reinstalled the game, but before that the Crash reporter said "GPU Hangs!" and that's all it told me. After reinstalling the game now I don't even get a crash reporter. I'm running a Nvidia 2070 with 8 GB vram, Intel i5 10600k, 16 GB of RAM, and Reforger is on an M.2 NVME SSD. Which all of this is above recommended specs, and it is still crashing even on lowest possible settings. And yes I took out my GPU, uninstalled the drivers, put my GPU back in, and reinstalled the drivers. I've reinstalled and uninstalled Reforger multiple times, checked file integrity, my drivers are up to date, I've done the whole 9 yards.

Arma Reforger is installed on my SSD which is my Main storage where Windows is installed, so Im afraid that probably isn't it.

I've gotten this crash so many times, and I just want to know why this keeps happening, I'm not doing anything other than just playing the game normally and all of sudden I'll get this crash. I get this crash while playing by myself or on MP servers. Sometimes I get this crash just when Im exiting the game. What is this crash, and why is it happening?

I moved this question over to the Arma Reforger forums, since I can't delete my post.

If you lost interest you should have just not bothered reading anything. Everything you've said is subjective opinion as well. I'd also like to think that It was more observation than feelings, since I pointed out the Tanks high points and what was wrong with them in general gameplay since I've tested every single one of these variants out in Combat Op scenarios against AI. The T-14 still mops the floor with the Rhino despite it's ATGM's and if players are in control of the T-14 they will effectively take measure to ensure they aren't hit from behind cover. You could have essentially just added an ATGM (Like I said in the post if truly read it) and changed the cannon of the Marshall and gotten the same result. Yes I did suggest better vehicles to be in their place, but doing so I said they would be more beneficial to the forces involved. This is called the TANKS DLC is it not? Or was I mistaken and this is the APC DLC? It really does not matter if the Nyx can be airlifted, it's still worthless and if I wanted to deal with infantry I'd use the Strider or FV-720 for AAF which are beefier and more useful than the Nyx. Sure it has an AT Variant, but so what? So does the FV-720 and it has an auto cannon and everything else except AT/AA Missiles, the AFV-4 Gorgon has an Autocannon and ATGM/AT Rockets, so once again the Nyx was not needed other than maybe AA missile platform. The T-14 and T-100 also have smoke which gives themselves time to deploy against the Nyx's AT rockets and retreat to cover before proceeding to find the Nyx and destroy it, not to mention the Nyx's low AT Rocket capacity means if they waste all of the rocket's they are screwed. Yes I pointed mostly to Full frontal assault's, but assuming that tanks are only used in Full frontal assault's is wrong. In my years of playing Arma, I have seen Tank's utilized in more ways than just Full frontal assaults. I simply pointed out that head to head every single one of these vehicles loses to the T-14 and T-100, showing how inferior they are and how it tips the power in CSAT's hands. The Rhino is worthless on Tanoa considering it's made for long range engagements and most of Tanoa is close to medium range combat and it will lose every single time unless the planets align and the crew gets lucky. I didn't even bother mentioning the AT Launchers, because they offer no new benefits. The MAAWS is not lighter than the PCML and it has less range then the PCML, nor did I notice a higher increase of damage so what's the point? If it's not lighter and it has less range than the PCML why should I bother using it? And the 9M135 is basically just a CSAT version of the Titan Launcher, so I guess that's good? But that sounds like something that should have once again been in the game from the start. Not that CSAT has ever had difficulty taking out NATO Armor with the RPG-42 or other launchers at their disposal. The offroad/4WD AT Variants, what's there to say? They added an AT Launcher to the offroads, so I guess that's a good thing? Assuming they aren't destroyed as soon as they fire off their first AT Rocket, considering it is a lightly armored. So it's a 50/50 chance you'll die once the Tank spots you and you pray to god that the AT destroys the tank and cripples it, also assuming they don't deploy their smokes which any commander would. I said in the beginning this was all my opinion yes? This was my feedback yes? You don't have to like my feedback, but it is what is. Just like your opinion is your opinion and nothing more. It's March 22nd and the Tank DLC releases April 11th and I have low confidence Bohemia will balance everything and get out the bugs, considering that they never even addressed a bug in the Tanoa DLC I pointed out during it's development and it still hasn't been fixed to this day.

First off I would like to start by saying I have the upmost respect for the work Bohemia does and I truly love Arma 3 and the Arma Franchise in General since I started playing back when Arma 2 came out. I also would like to apologize if this is in the wrong place and if it is I please ask that a moderator move it or redirect me to the correct place to post this. This is all my personal opinion and feedback on Arma 3 Tanks DLC on the Dev Branch. The Tank DLC is one of the last DLC's for Arma 3 and if one were to look back at the track record of their past DLC's they haven't exactly lived up to the communities expectations with a few exceptions like Helicopters and Marksman DLC and Tanoa being the Best DLC Arma 3 has released. However beside Tanoa, the Tanks DLC has been one of the most exciting DLC's I've been looking forward too since I saw the T-14 in the 2017 Roadmap as I think it was for most people. However now that the Tank DLC has hit dev branch and people have tested it out I can say in my personal opinion it is extremely disappointing and I do honestly wonder if the Developers listen to our feedback? Besides for the T-14 and vehicle interiors, this DLC adds nothing great and Vehicle interiors should have been in the game from the start. I'll quickly run down everything and what's wrong with them. However Tanks DLC is already too far along so nothing I say will really make a difference, but I feel it should be pointed out. The T-14: It's amazing there really isn't much to say and was what I've been waiting for so long since I saw it, However it's so amazing and powerful that is the problem with it. I'll explain why in a moment. However I have a few complaints with it. First I suggest the Developers and whoever is reading this to please watch this quick video below. T-14 Promo in English After watching this video and if you've used the T-14 you can probably tell there are a few things missing from Arma 3's version. Now you could say that the T-14 doesn't have any of this and the Russian Government is just lying. However I see no reason not to believe them and underestimating someone is the quickest way to the Grave. So Bohemia what the heck? Where's the Active protection? I know for a fact several us including myself when you were asking for Tank Feedback like a year ago told you we'd like Active Protection. Well the T-14 has Active protection just as the Merkava does and the T-14 has jamming technology and several layers of defense. The only possible excuse I could think is because you can't do it in the current engine, however if the excuse is that it is overpowered. That's a terrible excuse. There is no fairness in war and there are several vehicles that obviously are more powerful than the other factions. The AH-99 Blackfoot has less armor and less powerful rounds than the Mi-48, however you can still beat the Mi-48 if you're careful about how you engage them, but that should be Arma in General. So the T-14 should have the Active protection, jamming, and stealth technology. For heavens sake it's 2035 they should be using the most advanced equipment out there. Also where's the Green Paint Job like the Russians have and like I swore I saw in the 2017 Roadmap? The T-14 looks best in Green/Olive Bohemia. However Bohemia you did a great job on making the T-14 in Arma 3 look almost identical to the T-14 in real life and I love the T-14 interior. The Rhino MGS: I don't even know where to begin with the Rhino? What were you thinking Bohemia? I can't speak for all of the community, but I think I can speak for most of us that nobody asked for this. NOBODY. I can say with an almost 99.999% Accuracy that almost everyone was asking for the M1A2 Abrams. I can't even comprehend why you choose to include a weak 1985 South African tank called the Rooikat as a NATO Apc no less, we didn't even get a New Tank. We got an APC. Not only is the Rooikat what nobody asked for, it is unsuited for dealing with the T-14 or the T-100 no less. The Rhino loses to the T-14 and T-100 in every straight up fight in every possible way. Now yes yes, the Rhino is not made for a straight up tank to tank fight and is made more for long range fire on maps like Atlis and Malden and maybe Stratis (Good luck fighting on Tanoa where all vehicle combat is short to medium range) and you aren't suppose to fight a tank head to head and should try killing them from the rear and sides. However the M1A2 Abrams can fulfill the Rhino's role just as well if not better, in fact the T-14 can also do exactly the Rhino's role given a good gunner and commander especially with the new systems being involved. So what is the point of even having the Rhino? None what so ever. The M1A2 Abrams could fulfill this role just as well, upgrade the armor of the M1A2 Abrams and give it active protection and a 125mm or 130mm cannon like the Germans are working on right now and upgraded tech all around. The M1A2 Abrams could fight the T-14 and T-100 in a straight up fight and have a chance of winning, while the Rhino can do no such thing at all. Not only that but adding the T-14 to CSAT and giving NATO such a weak vehicle has handicapped NATO to such a great extent. The Slammer with the 105mm cannon can't beat a T-14 in a straight up fight and it takes 1-2 shots from the T-14 to kill the Slammer, while it can take 4-5 shots to the front of the T-14 and that's if the T-14 hasn't killed you by then, and not even the AI will be stupid enough most of the time to stand there and let you take it. The 120mm Slammer still takes 3-4 shots to the front to kill a T-14 but it still gets killed in 1-2 shots by the T-14 and the Autocannon version of the T-14 completely will cripple your tracks or gun extremely quickly. Yes yes you shouldn't fight head to head but try to kill it from the rear and sides, however that hardly matters when the T-14 will move once it gets shot in the back or side and still likely have its track in tact and quickly swerve it's 125mm cannon around to kill you, the first shot could and will cripple your gun and the second shot you're dead. So NATO is now at an extreme disadvantage, more so than they already were. Why did NATO not get a new MBT? I know America is pulling out of NATO in the Arma Universe basically, but you're telling me they couldn't spare ANY M1A2 Abrams? We have like 4,000 Abrams (Rough Guess, probably wrong) and the T-14 is more costly than the M1A2 and it's unlikely Russia would sell them to Iran or anyone, let alone in mass production. NATO needs a MBT not some old apc from South Africa that hardly has seen combat, let alone I don't even think any country except South Africa uses it and I don't think South Africa is part of NATO (I may be wrong) Hey Bohemia if you wanted to give us a beefier APC what you should have done is take the Marshall and give us a combat variant where you got rid of the seats in the back of the Marshall and made room for more AP rounds and GPR-T rounds to fight other APCs and infantry, reinforced armor along with the slat armor and a coxal machine gun for the Commander on the Marshall and make it the assault Marshall. That would certainly have been more useful and made me happy since the Marshall is my favorite APC. Could have given it AT Launchers like the Bradley too if you wanted to help deal with Tanks. Or better yet you could have added the Mortar Marshall from the Pre-Alpha footage that lots of people were interested in, including myself. (If anyone wants to make an Assault Marshall variant Mod I'd be externally grateful) This would have been more awesome than the Rhino and I still want to see it. However even if you had added it, NATO still would be at a disadvantage as I have described. CSAT already had the T-100 and that is super powerful, adding the T-14 a Tank Destroyer only tips the power balance more in CSAT's favor. So I don't understand this logic from Bohemia on why they would even give NATO the Rhino. AWC Nyx: You know I railed on the Rhino pretty bad, but I really really Really don't even know where to begin with this. I don't think anyone asked for this. Like at all. I think I can speak with 100% certainty this was never asked for. I don't play AAF very often, but I certainly have no problem with AAF and I think it's fun to play them occasionally. The FV-720 literally does almost everything that the AWC can do and it's all in one package while the AWC only has one weapon per variant. Sure I guess it's nice to have that, but I don't really know what's the point? Is there a point? I doubt it. The AWC really was not needed at all and offers nothing new to the battlefield let alone does it make AAF more appealing. The AAF already have the Leopard II which is possibly the only tank that can now compete with the T-14 and T-100 in a straight up fight, and even then it's doubtful. Especially considering the Leopard II certainly has proven it's not as invincible as people believe if anyone has paid attention to a certain world conflict in the middle east involving two countries that start with a T and S. There really is nothing useful or good to say about the Nyx. It has an auto cannon that can take out APC's but the other APC's in the game on the CSAT side have tougher armor and powerful weapons that will wipe the AWC out almost instantly if it's spotted. It has AT variant for Tank battles, but the Leopard II stands a better chance against other MBTs, and it has an AA Variant which I guess is useful since AAF has no AA tanks or APC's, but the Cheetha Even the Tigris is better suited for AA than the AWC. The AWC is awful and shouldn't even be added to the game. Not like it matters, but I think that AAF should have gotten the Challenger II MBT from the British since AAF is using the FV-720 which is a British APC and they are buying hand me down vehicles from Europe. The Challenger II should have become a new AAF MBT, because it would fit their MO and it certainly would prove to be an actual threat on the battlefield and make the AAF a real force to be reckoned with. The Challenger II is often called the most invincible tank having only suffered one loss (Blue on Blue) (But when do the British ever actually fight anyone nowadays?) So I think it would have been certainly interesting to put the Challenger II up to the challenge in Arma III and made the AAF deadly. Zamak: I was certainly surprised that a Zamak rocket variant was added to Arma III, however it's basically just a Soviet Artillery truck with lock on systems. Once again I don't see the point for the Zamak Artillery truck, if I were to choose a vehicle for the AAF to buy to compete with rival powers I would have chosen the S-300 as an AAF AA Truck to compete with the To-201 and F/A-18. The S-300 is more modern and cheap at that, the Russians would no doubt sell to Atlis if asked seeing it's 2035 and the S-300 will likely be super cheap and or phased out by the S-400 in 2035. However the Zamak Artillery truck is an Artillery truck for Surface to Surface combat so I would have chosen something a bit more modern Artillery platform from the Europeans or Hey Bohemia could have given that Artillery Marshall to the AAF. Nudge Nudge Once again it was pointless to add this and should have added something more modern and or tip the balance more in AAF's faction. Most people in the community already don't like AAF (However maybe there is a part of the community that loves the AAF) and this isn't going to make them interested in the AAF and this certainly only helps the AAF in a minor way against NATO and CSAT when they are already underpowered against the More powerful Artillery of NATO and CSAT. So in conclusion Im still going to buy this DLC which I guess makes me a hypocrite, however Im only buying this for the T-14 and nothing more. So I do hope Bohemia sincerely takes into consideration what I've said.

I don't even know what you're talking about with 3dmax or zbrush, It's also not a Nano Suit and I'm pretty sure the Spetsnaz would change their uniforms since the Battlefield is constantly evolving. Also I wouldn't call this COD stuff since this is real life and almost everything in the COD games is pretty fake....

If you could like not come in here and like ruin everything by making some off handed comment that would be nice, I'd like really appreciate it. Like a lot. I also direct you too what it says in the forum subtitle so if you could like please kindly go away.

I'm writing this short blog because of what I saw last night while going through Military/Science/Technology News. However before I get to that let me talk about something else really quickly. From the little knowledge we have about Arma III's lore and what I know (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) on Russia we know that Russia is not directly in CSAT Organization. CSAT is mainly made up of the Middle Eastern Countries and China with Iran leading the Middle Eastern countries. Whether or not that could really happen is beyond anyone's guess really, we could sit here and speculate and moan and argue that Iran could never form a collation of Middle Eastern Countries and reestablish peace in the middle east with Saudi Arabia and Israel plus the United States there, or blah blah blah Iran is a state sponsor of terror, etc etc etc. No one knows what the future holds and we will just have to see what happens in the middle east. However our main focus is Russia or the Russian Federation if you prefer, Russia to my knowledge funds and supports CSAT but is not directly in CSAT, which sounds like Russians Foreign policy, they usually stay within their own borders and never join any fights unless asked like in Syira's case or they need too. Russia has some pretty impressive technology for the Third or Fourth Highest Defense Budget in the world, it makes me jealous I will admit. So when I saw this stuff last night I almost died of excitement, because of how awesome and cool this is. Russian Combat Suit Reveal This Russian Combat Suit was unveiled at the National University of Science and Technology (MISIS) in Moscow. Now I KNOW that Combat suits are not surprising or something new. We know that the United States and Russia have been designing and planning to build and produce them for our soldiers. Which even if you know we have its still F***KING Awesome to see an actual prototype from the Russians and it just looks so cool. Its one of those "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY" Moments. So Now that we put that out of the way I defiantly think it would be cool to see Combat Suits with HUDS and Maximum Ballistic Armor for the Russians and Americans, like these in Arma III or Arma 4 (You don't want to admit it Bohemia but we all know you're eventually going to move on to Arma 4 so you can use you're new engine, unless you pull a Half Life 3 on us.) Now hold on before you say this would be way too powerful! (Well first off that's kinda the point of these suits so our soldiers don't get killed.) I do think we should defiantly see these in limited use in Arma III not give every soldier a Combat suit and a pat on the back and say go at them boy. They should be restricted to Special Forces on the Russians and United States Side. I do however think these should not be a vehicle because these are uniforms and body armor not vehicles. This is the Year 2035 and even though some in the community dread futuristic stuff like the Blackfoot Attack Helicopter, the Ghost Hawk Helicopter, (Yes I know that the Blackfoot is a cancelled project and I know the Ghost Hawk is a prototype) The drones, The MX Series, (Yes I know the MX Rifle is not a real rifle it is a combination of the SCAR and ACR) and the Fancy Gear that CSAT Has. Me Personally I love using the Blackfoot and the MX is my favorite Assault Rifle in the game. Most of these are all real Vehicles, Guns, Helicopters, Jets, and Armor that will be used in future warfare. The Battlefield is constantly evolving and so is the technology and since Arma III is set in 2035 I do think Bohemia should use the 2035 setting and give us futuristic gear and weapons. I also like the fact that Bohemia lets us use vehicles or prototypes that never got to see the day of light in combat like the XM8 and the Blackfoot Attack Helicopter. These were really cool projects and it was a shame they never replaced our old helicopters and assault rifles, but I'm glad I got to use them in Arma, cause where else am I going to use them? Arma III Simulates how war will be like in 2035, and to quote a Russian General from the article on Russian Combat Suits. So I would like to see Combat Suits for the American Special forces and maybe see some Spetnaz Russian Soldiers Bohemia? This Prototype is in 2017 so surely there will be some working models in 2035 for limited use in the American Special forces and Russian Special Forces. It would be nice to see in the Orange DLC, but me personally I believe you should dedicate this Armor and Gear to an entire DLC Based on Infantry Weapons and Armor. We could use a lot more Assault Rifles, LMGs, Pistols, and Rifles. Plus some shotguns would never hurt Bohemia? The KSG-12 Remember? KSG-12 I know a lot of you don't like Future stuff, however this is in 2035 so Bohemia should make the most out of it. Just be glad this isn't Black Ops II, III or Infinite Warfare type Future. I defiantly believe Bohemia does a better job at simulating Future Warfare than those games. And with that said this is what I would like to see as a DLC Bohemia.

Hello I'm looking for a Unit/Squad to join. I'm an Arma Veteran you could say as in I've been playing Arma since Arma II and played Arma II, then I played Operation Arrowhead, and then moved into Arma III. I currently have been playing Arma III on and off for the past Three Years with 750 Hours racked up in total. Obviously I'm an English player looking for an English Squad/Unit, but wouldn't mind work alongside international guys/gals too. I don't have a mic though, but I do know how to read my compass, map coordinates, and I half a** know how to use the stars (Not that anyone ever uses that feature, no offense Bohemia) I'll get around to buying a mic one day. I am over 18 and I would like to find a Semi Realism Military Unit who does PVE and PVP, but mainly PVE. I want to have fun, but at the same time I want a squad that atleast does formations, room clearing, and plans out their battles. I want to be able to use the Arma III assets to their fullest. I want to carry out large scale invasions, conduct recon missions before bringing in the main units, ACTUALLY get to use the submarines to sneak into enemy territory from the water, parachute out of helicopters into enemy territory in the middle of the night and do stealth ops. I defiantly want to be in a squad that does a lot of Combined Arms Gameplay, I like APC's and Tanks a lot, and I would like to be able to call in airstrikes or gun runs by giving the CAS back at base coordinates or laser designation for them to bomb or gun run. I play Vanilla Arma III mainly because I actually like Vanilla Arma III and I like the MX Rifle, Slammer tank, I REALLY like the Marshall, and I personally like the Blackfoot and A-164 and think they are really cool. I like using vanilla assets, but I do have RHS for the Russian Federation and United States and several other Gun Mods downloaded. If you do any of this and want to ask me to join just message me here.

Man Snowflake? Talk about taking a page out from us Conservatives in the United States. I don't give a shit about feelings, but you are one arrogant man. I was just trying to keep things friendly and civil. I really wish we would pull out of NATO, you guys can defend yourselves. That's assuming I wanted to learn from an arrogant man like yourself who can't even think creatively and doesn't think that Governments and Militaries change their minds or keep secrets. A man who denies change. Facts? Some public report from the Military that's been so heavily dumbed down for civilians like you and myself, that for all we know the Military could be working on freaking hover tanks to replace the M1A2. Also you lack to understand that the Future Tank contract is where companies are competing to design the next Future Tank. I don't see any reason why General Dynamics wouldn't compete for that contract, winning that contract means securing financial stability. Also seeing as how the Current M1A2's and M1A1s can't even compete with the T-14 I see no reason to keep the M1A1 or the M1A2, like I said again, upgrading and modernizing can only take something so far. The M1 Abrahams series has been in service 1980 and the US has slowly been phasing out all the old stuff for the new stuff. The Humvee? That's being phased out by the JLTV by Oshkosh Defense Company. The M9 Berretta? That's being phased out by the Sig P320. The A-10? We've been trying to phase out the A-10, only reason why we haven't replaced it, is because its so god damn good. The F-35 can't replace the A-10, not that its even made to since its a Multirole stealth fighter jet, F-35 would be lucky if it could even compete with the SU-35 and MIG-35, I've worked on and with the F-35 and I still prefer the F-22. Yes I look at the PL-01 and yes anyone who looks at it would be impressed by looks, seeing as I have never got to see one up close and examine it, but hey I guess every country has an F-35 Project that is completely useless in combat. Which I guess is why The United States always has to defend your sorry asses from a Mythical Russian Invasion that's never coming. You don't even have a tank that could compete with the T-14 and our tanks can hardly compete with the T-14 either, and the Germans are still working on a 30mm cannon, but that likely will have to be put on a new tank all together. I don't even know why the fuck we are arguing about this, when this Arma III a god damn video game. So what if Arma III put an M1A3 into the game even if it wouldn't be real?

Direct Quote from Bohemia Interactive. If the Game Developers are going to ask for the Game Communities wishes I'm going to give it to them because I can and I will. Again Try to Think

*Sigh* I see you lack creativity. For the one who is pretending to be the adult in this situation you lack even basic manners or respect and still continue to name call. Even if you were older I find that excuse quite lacking because you assume just because you are old you are smarter. There are probably younger people than both you and I who know more than the both of us combined. Yes I noticed you said NGCV called Future Tank, but its called Future Tank. For all we know it could be the M1A3, seeing as how it has no official name. When we were making an aircraft to compete with the SU-27 and the Mig-29 we called it the Advanced Tactical Fighter and didn't know much until the F-23 and F-22 competed. So maybe General Dynamics will compete and win the contract with an M1A3, I highly doubt the M1A2 will still be in service in 2035, seeing as how in Arma III The A-10 is replaced with the A-164 a more stealthier and advanced version of the A-10, modernizing things can only take you so far. Eventually you will have to rebuild and redesign a vehicle or Aircraft completely because the current platform can no longer support modern armaments and technology. I also know who General Omar Bradley, so I would appreciate if you were not a rude fk and didn't assume that I didn't know. I made a typo, people do this. I know as a Reporter you guys think you are the model of perfection and everyone who makes typos are beneath you, but sometimes you guys make Typos too. Honestly you'd think you'd have better things to do than monitor the US Militaries Armored Vehicles Program. You know with NATO and Russian tensions rising in Europe on the Russian Border and the largest Military Buildup since World War II. Or maybe you'd even pay attention to your own Country's current Tanks, like I don't know the PL-01? The PL-01 MBT is a nifty looking tank being made in Poland as one of your next Main Battle Tanks. Maybe Bohemia won't add any M1A Series Tanks and maybe they will make NATO's next main battle tank the PL-01, unrealistic as it is to make such a light tank mostly made for stealth a main battle tank, it would be Bohemia's call to make. This is set in the future and anything could happen. All I suggested was Bohemia make an M1A3 for Arma III, even if the US Military does not make the M1A3 their next Main Battle Tank. It would be cool too see what Bohemia would create. All I'll say next is its rude and narrow minded to assume younger people can't be interested or knowledgeable in Armored Vehicles such as Tanks and APCs, Older doesn't make you smarter. So why don't we just end this conversation now and at least part on a friendly note that we both like Armored Warfare vehicles and are passionate about them.

Yes Because the US Military would really tell you what they are working on and building. Yes because I'm sure everyone knew about the U2 Spy plane back in the day too. Global Security was just one source I used. Also as an Mechanical Engineer I'd prefer if you not call me a kid, lets keep this civil and not name call. I'm an engineer and your a Military Journalist for POLAND, not even the United States. I'm fully aware of the M1A2SEPv3 and M1A2SEPv4, but I have a sneaky suspicion our next Main Battle Tank will be called the M1A3, something just tells me since we have a pattern of keeping things original... F-15 F-16 F-18 F-22 F-35 M1A1 M1A2 M2 Bradly M3 Bradly You starting to see the pattern? We over here in America don't like to change names a lot and just like to add a new number. This is also 2035 in Arma III and if you seriously think that the US Military would not have developed a new Main Battle tank or the M1A3 by 2035 over a span of 18 years whilst the Russians researched and developed the T-14 in 2011 and started production by 2015, then I don't even know what to say. Not to mention the US Defense Department is getting a bump of 70 Billion Dollars with orders from the President to modernize and upgrade the US Military. Also this is a video game set in 2035, try to think outside the box for once. Be creative and think in the future, not now in the past. Geez.