archbishop lazarus

When BI$ announced that this game will be available through $team, it was already obvious for me, that A3 wont be a quality product. They simply wanted quick profitssss... With minimal amount of work. They did their stupid advertising campaign by promising all those things, and then by the "early access alpha and beta". It was very successful, lots of people "eaten the bait", and paid tons of money for - it turned out - nothing. What BI$ released to the community as "final", is an early beta at best. Its simply outrageous. Totally clear that the development was rushed; you can feel that the developers wanted to get it done as soon as possible. You can also feel that they did their "work" without motivation, like when someone works in a factory, and doing the same monotonous thing all the day. I also think they didnt even plan to add the majority of those advertised features. OFP and Arma2 were gems. But A3... A shame. BI$ betrayed the whole community. Moderators can remove this post, I dont care. But this is the truth.

Another problem is inside sounds. BI$ thinks that sounds in a vehicle are muffled. This clearly shows that they have never ever seen any military vehicles inside. In reality, (at least in soviet built vehicles), the roar of the engine is deafening, to an extent that I think you wouldnt hear bullet hits on the armor plate in front of you. And to stay on topic, this is also true for weapon sounds. In all BI$ games, you hear the same sound as outside, but its muffled and quieter. In reality, you hear mostly the metallic sounds of the recoil, which is also very loud.

Judging from the "quality" of the game, BI$ will definitely release the tools as soon as possible, since they want the community to finish their product...

I think there is a better answer for that question: Two weeks! Those who played IL-2 Sturmovik from the beginning probably know what this means, those who didnt, will know... :p

Wont be soon, but it will be well worth the wait! Tons of previously never seen, unique content! :)

Damian90: Actually, you only need a 12.7mm HMG to damage an M2/M3. It happened quite frequently in wars with iraq :) Bradleys are poorly armored. Vilman: Jó látni itt egyre több magyart! :)

Rydygier! I have an idea for hull/turret armor difference. There would be two values for front, and the script would choose between them based on a preset chance. For example 2/3 - 1/3 chance for turret and hull hit. I know almost nothing about scripts, so I dont know if it would be possible to implement. What do you think?

Yes. And he is very well known for his incompetence about russian equipment. He writes tons upon tons of bullshit. Im in contact with people who actually operated russian made equipment, and everybody agrees that Zaloga's books arent recommended for anybody who is doing professional research. The table above is overly optimistic about the armor strenght of the Abrams. M1A1 hull & turret is no more than 450mm vs. KE, while M1A1 HA turret is around 660-680. More recent estimations from NII Stali also lower than those (530-660 vs. KE)

Lets clear things up. First, 9M116 is the missile of 9K115 Metis system. What you are referring to is the 9K116 missile system. But it has many variations: 9K116 Kastet is for 100mm MT-12 AT guns, 9K116-1 Bastion is for 100mm D-10 tank guns (T-55AM/AMV), 9K116-2 Sheksna is for 115mm 2A20 tank gun (T-62M/MV), and finally, the 9K116-3 Basnya is for 100mm 2A70 guns (BMP-3, BMD-4). BMP-3 uses the 3UBK23-3 round, with 9M117M1 Arkan missile.

Thx! Damned NATO codenames... I hate them all. Then it also needs change, 9M117M1 Arkan missile penetrates 850mm armor. Yes, agree!

Hi! I also suggest little change: T-55: 250 KE&CE T-34: 90 KE&CE (in fact no need to average protection because both glacis and turret front are 90mm LOS. :) Penetration: 100mm HEAT: 380 PG-9: 300-400-550? problem is we dont know the exact type ingame. AT10: what the hell it that btw? Vihr: 1200mm Javelin: 2000 (to simulate top attack maybe) @ Damian90: Thx for the pictures! Now I remember that frinedly fire incident with the Challenger-2. But I saw that photo the first time! Horrible destruction... Regarding Challenger-1 armor, hehehe funny. Really looks like a Chieftain! :)

Hmmm, then those fuel tanks are quite well designed then! Another??? Challenger 2 ever suffered catastrophic ammo explosion? I didnt know that. Could you tell me the details, Im really interested! Thats also interesting! Please, could you upload it? Well, originally the design philosophy was what you described. But recently, russians advertising these missiles as "Abrams and Leopard killers", which give the T-90 huge advantage against western tanks, due to the long range. What a BS. They try to distract attention from the weak (at least compared to modern western ammo, but up to the end of cold war, 125mm was significantly more potent than NATO 120mm.) APFSDS for 125mm guns.

Correct me if Im wrong, but I heard that they are primarily vs. HEAT. Probably the gunner was inexperienced, and hit the armor at an angle. Challenger-2 hull front, protected by ERA was penetrated by this weapon in an another case. As far as I know it really happened. But M1A1HA's front turret is 1080-1320 vs. CE, so the chance of surviving a Hellfire hit is quite high. It is why the effectiveness of russian GL ATGMs, like the Refleks or Invar are overestimated. HEAT warheads arent effective anymore against turret front armor of contemporary tanks. Its OK that you can fire the missiles far beyond the reach the 120mm guns, but so what? They are ineffective, especially against the M1A2, Chally-2 or Leo-2A5/6.

I also suggested using average (~300mm) values. Look at the turret from the front. On the right side of the gun, 3/4 to 4/5 of the turret is over 300mm LOS, on the left side, 2/3. (its because the gun is offset to the right) Only 1/10 of the frontal aspect is under 250mm. Not bad for a turret that is originally designed to defeat only the 8.8cm L/71. Hehehe... Its the same with the rear doors of BMP1/2. A common western misbelief is that storing fuel in their rear doors is terribly dangerous for the troops. In reality, fuel made the rear doors immune to .50cal HMGs.

Yes, I also recommend that site. Good source. However, a few things need to be corrected, like T-55 armor values. I researched it quite extensively. Glacis should be 205-210 instead of 190 due to good quality steel, while turret should be ~280-300 instead of the usual 203mm. Reason, is the shape of the turret. If you look at the tank from the front, effective protection is around 200mm in the vicinity of the gun, but it quickly rises to 250, and around the sides it reaches 400mm. Average is 280-300. It is confirmed by israeli reports from various wars. At longer ranges, early 105mm APDS (up to M728) often failed to penetrate the turret front. It is the same with M-60A1/A3 tanks, (OK, I know we dont have them in the game) where the usual 254mm is again false thanks to the excellent turret shape. Reality is 330-620mm.

Check the page below, and look for APFSDS rounds. It is the best and most reliable source available. And if you need help with armor values, I can help. http://www.russianarmor.info/

Is that in mm? Then it is overly optimistic, the most advanced 3BM42M projectile penetrates avg 600-650mm @ 2km. Certified penetration is unknown, but lower, not more than 600mm.

I've also driven a BMP-1. Yes, I agree, its track can be quite noisy on asphalt/concrete, and especially when turning the vehicle. But unfortunately such "turning sounds" are impossible to do in Arma 2. Track design is also a factor in noise levels, and BMP-1/2 tracks are among the noisy types, but on soil, it isnt too audible.

I would be really grateful if you can do it! :) If you succeed, please drop me a PM.

Im glad that I could help a bit! :) Previous page! :D What Im desperately trying to find, is the turret servo sound of soviet tanks. You can hear it in the following video, between 0:23 and 0:27, but I wasnt able to extract it, too much engine/gyro/fan noise.

Dude, you cant just plug in the american stuff to the soviet TPU system! They are incompatible! :) In RL, americans would have two options: 1, use the soviet tankist helmets (which are actually better than those heavy, bulky american helmets) 2, dont use them, but then they cant communicate with each other in the tank. So, a little constructive criticism: First, to have some insight to the sounds in a real tank (first T-64, then T-72) watch these videos: With engine at idle, the crew can talk, although loudly. But as soon the vehicle starts moving, they have to shout to understand each other. And note that you dont hear any track noise inside, only the roar of the engine, the sound of the gyros, fans and the autoloader! Without helmet, its simply deafening. Its true for all soviet vehicles, they are ALL very loud. Outside sounds: The sound quality of this video is excellent, one of the best I've ever heard, its very close to RL. Another one, quite good quality: (BMP-3 & T-90) You can hear the track noise, but only sometimes, and only barely!

I cant comment on weapon sounds, Im sure they are very good. But vehicle sounds in JSRS... Those are ridiculous! Track noise is way too loud, both inside&outside, or engine sounds doesnt even resemble the original. Inside sounds are also horrible. I actually drove a few russian vehicles (T-55, BMP-1, MTLBu for example), so I exactly know what Im speaking about. Inside, the roar of the engine is deafening, and you cant hear the track noise at all, even when turned out. Outside track noise is audible only about 50 meters away. Closer you dont really hear it due to the engine. Farther, you dont hear it due to distance.

Probably Maljutka or Maljutka-M. No wonder, since it is MCLOS. Maljutka-P is far more accurate (80-90% hit probability), but we dont have that in our mod.

Entirely different. You dont even feel the weight. I've driven a T-55, its very easy to control the tank. Acceleration is very good in 2nd, and quite acceptable in 3rd. 4th and 5th arent that good, but they arent for difficult terrain. Sure, 580hp isnt much, (reflected in acceleration in 4th and 5th), but the 2300+Nm torque of the engine is more than enough. And this torque is available almost at idle rpm! I also have driving experience on MTLBu and BMP-1. The latter is simply phenomenal. Easier to drive than a car, has extremely high power reserve, and very good speed. Its off-road ability is also fantastic. BTW, watch this: The mud is sometimes 1+ meters deep! Try following them with a wheeled vehicle. Its hopeless. Except tracked vehicles, you can only go along this road on the back of a horse.

Did you drive one in RL? :j: I can tell you that around 50-70cm deep mud means nothing for a modern tank! My personal experience.