dreday

NouberNou, I definitely agree with your points regarding the modern-day state of things. My point was that the Soviets were not simply about making larger numbers of cheaper tanks and the NATO powers did not always have the superiority in tank armor, protection, and mobility (even on 1 vs 1 basis). Both sides had designed the tanks that were considered best suited for them and I find it difficult to say that one tank design philosophy superior to the other prior to the mid 1980s. Peace, DreDay

I would tend to agree that the latest versions of Abrams, Leo II, and Challanger have been superior to their Soviet/Russian counterparts since the mid 80s. The major reason for that was due to the Western advancements in the Fire Control and Thermal Imaging technologies. Soviets were not able to catch up prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union and afterwards they have lost most of their funding. However, the case was much less clear in the 70s and early 80s. Many people would argue that T-64 was superior to most (if not all) Western tanks of the period. That was part of the Soviet design philosophy, but definitely not all of it. Ultimately, the Soviets had made the tanks that were best suited for them and the NATO powers had design the tanks that fitted them best. Again, a lot of people would argue that T-34 and KV-1 were superior to any German tank in 1941 and early 1942. Same argument can be made for JS-2 in 1944 and JS-3 in 1945. You can use the same logic to describe the US and British tank design philosophy of that period (WWII) - so what does that really tell us? Again, that's a fairly simplistic look at the Soviet design principles that were a lot more complicated than that. Every tank design is a compromise between armored protection, firepower, and mobility. Soviets had chosen their priorities differently than the NATO countries, but it's difficult to say that one approach was better than the other... Peace, DreDay

Janes Information Group is a publisher from UK that prints out defense reports based on the publicly available information. Their data is far from universally verified and no one certifies their "experts". They are prone to biases and misinformation just like everyone else. Their data is far from verified and they are only as good as their sources (which might include that same Russian website that you are so fired up against). Peace, DreDay

I think that the word that you are looking for is "tends", but I understand that English is not your first language; you communicate in it quite well and I commend you on its usage. I definitely know what you mean. The weight of the internal space (whether empty or not) is not an issue, what's important is that it requires extra armor to cover it. Baff1 has already given an excellent breakdown of how a little bit of the internal space results in a lot of external armor that is required to cover it. LOL! I am not claiming to be an expert on the tank design, but I have read more than enough about it to form my opinions. Believe you me, I have searched... plenty! If this is something that you want to debate, I think that a TankNet might be a better place for it... These IFVs have quite good armor for their class, but they are not nearly as well protected as the MBTs. Nor do they have the heavy turrets or guns that MBTs do. If they were and if they did, they would weigh the same as comparable MBTs, or more. It's as simple as that... That's beside the point, the inside space of the Soviet tanks was even smaller.... Peace, DreDay

Actually the Russians had their own T-80 factory (first in Leningrad and later in Omsk). All the Soviet T-80B(V)s and T-80Us were made there. The Ukrainian plant in Kharkov had started making T-80UDs (which had more in common with T-64B than T-80B) only in the mid 1980s... Be that as it may, the Russians had chosen to put all their eggs in T-90 basket and no new T-80 production is expected, although some upgrades to the existing T-80s are quite likely. Peace, DreDay

None of the T-80s operated by the Russian Army have any thermal sights. That is still the case in 2011 as far as I know. Peace, DreDay

It's been a while since I've read about this, but I believe that the tank that you are referring to was actually T-72B that was "accidentally" left on one of the ex-Soviet bases in ex-GDR. It was proven to be quite effective against the latest 105mm rounds; which was quite a surprise to the Western experts; however it's frontal RHA equivalent was nowhere close to 1200mm...as far as I recall... As for the whole advanced FCS vs ATGMs - I am not even going to get into that discussion. Plenty has been written about it and much of that can be found on the internet... Peace, DreDay

I don't believe that it was always the case of "more", but the armored protection of the Soviet tanks was at least comparable to that of their Western counterparts throughout the Cold War. Unfortunately the smaller crew compartment volume had also resulted in the lower chance for the crew survival if the armor was penetrated... Peace, DreDay

Unfortunately not that I am aware off... It is a much needed feature and it had been brought up in the Suggestions forum on quite a few occasions. Peace, DreDay

Back to the original point of the thread... I think that it's a great suggestion. I am guessing that back in the OFP days this limit was put into place in order to limit the strain on the system resources (mainly RAM) needed to keep track of the guided missile flight beyond a certain range. Hopefully most system nowadays are powerful enough give the ATGMs their RL range. Peace, DreDay

I am surprised that I have to mention this, but this assumption is not necessarily true. The tank with a lower internal volume can afford to be lighter (i.e. there is less of an area to be protected, hence less weight in armor) while offering the same levels of protection as a heavier and larger tank. Of course the lower internal volume causes its own host of issues, but it had been an approach taken by the soviet tank designers to offer completable armored protection at a lower weight... and up until the late 80s they were able to accomplish that... Peace, DreDay

What you consider whining and moaning, others consider useful input. BIS can not always gauge the proper sense of what the community wants without the community being vocal on the important issues. That's why I gladly support BIS with my purchases. However, I also feel free to voice my disagreements with certain BIS decisions as their past, current, and potential future customer. You absolutely do, and I respect all your input until you start telling other members that it's either your way or the highway... I find it inappropriate to tell other members to leave the community if they are vocally voicing their criticism over something that you don't consider a big deal. More so, telling that to a respected veteran of this community... Again, our money does not go to Activision, it goes to BIS. Therefore, we feel entitled to voice our concerns as loyal and committed customers. That's good to know and I wish you further happiness, calmness, and best of luck with your tooth! Peace, DreDay

Kevaskous, With all due respect, you need to calm down yourself. Beagle has contributed quite a lot to this community and he has a right to his opinion regarding the game that he has payed for and supported for so long. Peace, DreDay

Say what? I call total BS on what you say about your super reload skills. This is how fast a highly trained operative reloads a smaller and lighter AKSU: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egS5b6ZUp4w&NR=1 So unless you also happen to be a member of SpN MVD/FSB/GRU, I find it very hard to believe your claim. This is all done under the perfect conditions and the operator discards his original magazine instead of storing it in a vest (a la ArmA2). I grantee you that he would not do it as well or as fast after having run for 1km, then having crawled the same distance on his stomach while bullets are flying all around him (a la ArmA2). Sorry Prodavec, but I am not buying what you're selling us at all... if you catch my drift... Peace, DreDay

Begale makes some excellent points regarding the current generation of AFVs. However, prior to the advancement of the modern FC/Observation systems, unbuttoning was definitely a legitimate tactic in order to gain better situational awareness. Also, we have to consider that the same in-game behavior is displayed by all the armored vehicles, including those where the unbuttoned commander should be relatively safe during the operation of the main weapon (i.e. BMP-2). In game terms, I see no particular reason for the gunner to unbutton along with the TC. Peace, DreDay BTW, I am in no way discounting what Beagle is saying and I am far from an ultimate authority on AFVs... but here are a couple of videos that I was able to quickly find on youtube that show the tanks firing their main guns with the unbuttoned crew... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ep5jM9P7lg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq929f1-SyQ

The rear sights of the AK/AKM/AK-74 are located much further from the shooter's eye than most Western rifles due to the moving stock cover. Therefore, they would always appear smaller than most others (i.e. M16/HKs, etc...). This is a well known limitation of the original AK design. Could this be why they appear smaller in the game? Also, I have just done some quick tests with a plain sight AK-74 in the game (latest beta) and I was able to easily hit the small pop-up targets out to 350-400 meters, which is the most that you would probably expect IRL... Peace, DreDay

I am not sure if this is by design or not, but the real life behavior of the original SU-25s is not that different from what I've read. Apparently their native laser designator is not very effective. This has obviously been addressed in the later versions/upgrades (i.e. SU-25SM), but not too many of those are in service... Peace, DreDay

I agree in principle, I would certainly like to see the proper implementation of the fireteams in ArmA, but it's not something that can be done very easily. For one thing, how should AI behave when the squad makeup is not your standard US/NATO OOB (i.e. not consisting of 2-3 balanced fireteams with a team leader, automatic rifleman, grenadier, and rifleman)? Also, the Russians (OPFOR) use a different tactic altogether where the squad splits into the support element (MG, RPG, their assistants, Squad Leader) and assault/maneuver element (assistant squad leader/grenadier and riflema(e)n). This is a fairly complex system that has to be coded, and I would not expect it to be addressed till ArmA 3. It is much needed feature though and it would improve the gameplay a lot. However, I am afraid that for now it belongs more to the suggestions forum, rather than the beta testing one. Peace, DreDay

Good point! There is definitely a place for more VV/OMON/OMSN units in ArmA. Ideally, it would be great to have both - MVD operators with Maskas, and GRU "heavies" with ballistic vests (6B23) and helmets (6B26/7/8).

I am not a config editing guru, but I would hope that it's possible in a same way that ACE does IR strobes right now. It's definitely a great suggestion that would enhance both the realism and the game play!

I agree 100%. It should definitely be doable, but it would require a lot of the CPU cycles to simulate individual fragmentation projectiles (even in an abstracted way). Then again, the hardware is cheap and getting cheaper; so hopefully BIS would be able to work this in for ArmA 3 - by that time most of the potential players should have to hardware to support it!!

Maska series of helmets were designed specifically for the MVD (police and interior troops). Russian Army (Ministry of Defense) has never adopted them to the best of my knowledge, so it would be a bit strange to see them on the GRU operators. Instead, they are likely to be using 6B26/27/28 series of helmets. Peace, DreDay

Those are excellent suggestion. Unfortunately this would not work with the current engine because it does not account for the fragmentation pattern of the round. In other words, a shell in ArmA 2 has it's direct and indirect hit radius and value; but it's abstracted to the point where it doesn't matter if it explodes on the ground or in the air - it's going to inflict exactly the same damage within the given range. Coming up with a better simulation for the fragmentation and the explosives would definitely make the game more interesting and realistic; it would also the fortified positions a lot more important than they are right now. Peace, DreDay

I see your point; however I also feel that the BIS would be better suited to focus on updating/adding the core features that can not be addressed by modding, rather than the ones that have a (scripted) fix. Peace, DreDay

Great discussion so far! Here is some more food for thought - Chechen rebels have been known to use not only the RPGs, but even the underbarell grenade launchers (i.e. GP-25) to engage Russian hellos... I don't remember if any Hinds were actually brought down by them, but I do recall reading about a few that were damaged in that manner. Peace, DreDay