GatorMarineDiaz

Hey, I'm working on making the TA31RCO reticle for the M16A4 ACOG, can anyone help me out at all on where to start with this? I can't seem to get the acog .paa's working in texview. On a different not, I can't seem to find where to modify the Mk19's rate of fire, anyone know how?

the tip of the Chevron is 200m, the inner point of the chevron is 300m, the first cross is 400m, the second is 500m, etc etc, until the bottom which is 800m

The problem with that is that part of the whole reason the USMC uses ACOGs is because it is meant to be used with both eyes open like the screenshots from the beginning of the thread. For Sniper rifles the blacked out thing works OK, but specifically for the ACOG it does not. For those who don't know the ACOG is meant to be fired with both eyes open, except at extreme distance, and the view does look like the scopes in Red Orchestra.

Negative, I am not very experienced with this kind of thing. I am just using a graphic that looks like it "glows"

I am working on implenting this reticle, for the time being it looks OK but I still want better results so it may be some time before I reach a releasable state.

It should look like the first one. The model is the TA31RCO, the TA31F is the civilian version and doesn't have any horizontal markings That first pic is excellent, btw http://www.botachtactical.com/trta1.html

What he's saying is that the version of the ACOG depicted in game (that is the version in use with the USMC) is supposed to have the red chevron reticle. All Marines are issued ACOGs with their M16A4/M4 Service Rifle and ALL of these ACOGs use the red chevron. That is the ONLY model issued to Marines.

Thanks, what I meant to ask was if that OD was going to included or if it was just an intermediate version before they made the camo'd ones.

Are you going to do a plain OD paint job as well? I am pretty sure that prior to taking all of the old M1s out of service (to be sold, scrapped, or upgraded) they were all required to be repainted completely OD.

Looking good, if the mod makers have any questions about AAVs at all I'm an Amtrac marine and can tell you just about anything you'd want to know about an AAVP7a1. A couple suggestions: the center return roller should be raised just a bit, there should be a horn above the port aft brake light (looks like a small black circular item if woodland camo), and the top of the the ramp should be less tall and should form like a little lip. If you want to make the gear more realistic you should cross a tow cable diagonally from either fore mooring cleat to the opposite for towing eye as most AAV units use this as a safeyy precaution to help be able to tow a damaged trac out of danger quickly. It is something that unit SOP usually decides. You could also add a hmmv tire to be strapped to the front or have one the the tow ropes draped accross the front with both ends strapped to the fore mooring cleats. This would also be something decided by unit SOP as it helps protect the vehicle from damage when impacting and also helps keeping telephone cables and power lines from smacking the driver in the face while driving. Last, remember that the commander in an AAV sits in the gunner's position. The three crew positions would be driver, crew chief (commander/gunner), and rear crewman (sits in the troop compartment/dungeon). excellent work and I hope you get to release soon

I never said anything about a T-80, tbh it would be much more realistic for the SLA to have T-80Us than T-90s. If the mod makers want to make a T-90 I'm all for it, I just think it's a bit greedy for the us to start asking for a T-90 before they've even gotten a chance to finish the M1A1 and other Abrams variants that this pack is focused on. Â

The T-90 is fine for what it's meant to do, and it would probably be very well suited for the urban tank VS infantry environment they've dealt with in Chechnya. Unfortunately for Russia, with her lack of military funding, there are only about 300 total in their army. I am not sure about this, but last I heard they were having trouble keeping up with India's purchase and producing enough at a time, which if thats' the case I doubt they would be too keen on exporting a handful to a tiny communist island nation. What I think would be most appropriate would be an SLA upgraded T-72, maybe very similar to a T-90, PT-91, or M-95. Any thoughts? to Gedis: It was never meant to a be a who's d*ck is bigger, I only meant to give examples of why I thought what I did, thank you for understanding and I am glad this was resolved in a civil manner

On Topic: There were M1A1s that were damaged by 115mm, 100mm, and even one damaged by a 73mm, these were all cosmetic damage (with the exception of 1 or 2, if my memory serves me right, that hit either the engine or roadwheels) to the external stowage rack and gear that was stowed on the outside of the vehicle, as well as a gunner's sight and other very lucky hits that broke some small fragile external equipment. I agree that modern 125mm ammo can probably damage an M1A1 with a shot to the side, but I don't think the SLA would have modern ammo. Also if you consider that M1A1s have shot other M1A1s in the side of turret, and that Mavericks, hellfires, and TOWs have also hit M1A1s with little effect (some have also devasted M1A1s, so I'm not saying this means it's invincible) I think it would be fare to say 2-3 hits to the side of the Turret and 1-2 to the side of hull would be pretty accurate. When I was using NWD's FCS mod I believe that's basically how he had the more modern 125mm rounds balanced anyways, so maybe Mateck could just add in more modern 125mm rounds as an alternate loadout? Keep in mind, I haven't gone over the official documentation of damaged M1s in a while, so the exact amounts hit by what are a bit rusty, but there is a list on Wiki from the first Gulf War that is a copy of the official one. I suggest people look it over as it is very informative. To Gedis: "LOL, someone got pwnd" in reference to Iraqi T-72s being destroyed. And the rest of your previous statement was done in a very offensive manner to myself, and though I don't know wether or not anyone else was offended at the things you said, this is not the place to be discussing the politics of war. I'm sorry if I come off as pretentious or a "fanboy" or w/e, but believe me when I say I know what I'm talking about and I am not some dumb fanboy. Maybe I misunderstood you, if I did I am truly sorry, I promise I will try not to jump to a conclusion like that if you promise to watch how you word things From the very beginning I have stated that the reason it is as it is ingame is because the model of T-72 ingame is an older model and if Iraq couldn't get their hands on modern ammunition you can assume the SLA probably can't as well. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that these T-72s would get massacred. Please try to understand that I am not saying anything about modern Russian and eastern equipment and that I am not trying to debate this, I only intend to explain why, in my opinion, this mod is perfectly balanced based on the tanks and nations in question. All this discussion of "modern blah blah can prob do yadda yadda yadda to an Abrams" is completely irrelevant as this is not a modern T-72. The evidence shows that old T-72s are quite innnefective against modern M1A1s, as it is in this mod. I have said nothing about modern ones, and until they mod in a modern one, everyone should cease to do so. I have shown evidence for my arguments and if you want to discuss this by PM I will be more than happy to, but I refuse to continue to argue this point because this has gone completely off topic and it is a disrespect to Mateck, T_bone, and NWD, who have each put their work into this mod and have done an amazing job thus far. It seems to me that the people arguing for the T-72 so viciously haven't tried this mod out as it virtually completely changes the idea of straight hitpoint based tank combat (if you have been playing around with this mod, I probably don't mean you, and if I do mean you and you have tried this mod, I am sorry I have incorrectly accused of something). If you aren't aware, it makes it so the front of the tanks (both T-72 and Abrams) is much more armored than the sides which is more armored than the rear. By this mod's setup a T-72 can kill an Abrams with a well-aimed shot to the rear with 1 good shot, a few to the side, and many to the front. An Abrams can kill a T-72 with 1 to 2 good shots to the front or side of a T-72, and 1 to the rear. If anyone thinks that is unrealistic, knowing that it is an old T-72 with old ammo fighting a new M1A1 with new ammo, you should feel completely free to do so, but discussing why the US shouldn't use DU, arguing about T-90s and modern Russian equipment, and all of this discussion of RPGs being able to "kick an Abrams a**" is all irrellevant. Sorry for the rant, but seriously, that's enough, if you have something to say to me that you want to debate or argue about, PM me, because I will not continue to argue over all of this on any ADDONS & MODS thread Semper Fidelis

Look, no one is saying a 125mm could never penetrate an Abrams at any range, but what IS being said is that like the way it's modeled here, a 125 isn't going to destroye an Abrams in one shot to the front and probably not with one shot to the flank either. Test it ingame and you will see that a shot to the engine will take it out just fine, just like it would IRL. To Gedis: I would appreciate it also if you didn't make jokes and laugh about people dieing, a lot of people here have been to war and a lot of people here know people who have given their lives.

"three M1A2s vs . . ." Thanks for that correction I couldn't remember the setup, only that the end result was 7 destroyed T72s and no US losses.

The new green texture looks really great. Those sources that say a 2A46 can penetrate Abrams armor are speculation, and because Abrams have been hit by 125mm rounds everywhere from 2000m to 50m, and on the front and sides, if you look at the results you will see that NO Abrams has ever been fully penetrated a 125mm. The fact that 7 Abrams against 7 T-72s faced off at 50m with all T-72s destroyed and no Abrams damaged speaks loudly. I feel like some people are arguing here without fully understanding how Mateck's mod has changed the armor stats. Yes the tank is still based on hitpoints, but it simulates the less armor on the sides and rear, so even if you test it out in game you won't find the Abrams weakness unless you're attacking the rear from various angles. This (and NWDs) is the only mod I have played that has simulated the Abrams REAL weakness as well as it's REAL strength. Regardless, I'm not posting anymore on this subject, as people won't change peoples minds when arguing over favorites. I, and other people here, have posted factual information and real world combat examples and compared them to how they are modeled ingame (quite accurately), others have deemed it unfair because of circumstance or blown it off as propaganda. I propose everyone drop this debate and stick to Mateck's addon, he will do with the stats what he pleases And back to the color, the new green looks really great, as does the mud. I thought the old green looked a bit off, but this looks about spot on. Remember to add Panels to the front of the turret too.

But this is a game where realism is equally a factor, hence the lack of the ability to jump etc. No one would cry if a well placed RPG took out an M1A1, that's how it should be because that's how it is IRL, but the fact is that has to be a very well placed RPG to do so even IRL, many M1A1s have been hit with many RPGs and come away with little more than scratches in the paint. In fact the majority of tankers I have conversed with have been hit by RPGs and none of them have ever been in a tank that was disabled or destroyed. Even AAVs get hit by RPGs and walk away from them pretty commonly. There was even a Challenger 2 tank that was hit 71 times in one engagement by RPGs and other AT weaponry that was able to continue fighting until rescued. M1A1s will always win in head to head fights with T72s like these, that's why you have to fight them more intelligently, sneak up from behind, hit them in the sides. I have been playing around with Mateck's M1A1s for a while now and have seen them blown up by anywhere from 1 to 5 RPGs, so just like in real life, hitting it in the front won't cut it, and if you really want a quick kill aim for the tracks and/or engine. You CAN take it out quickly, but only if you attack skillfully. Just last night I set up a quick test with two M1A1s (commanded by me and the AI) and I put several guys with rifles and RPGs in Sakakah Al Jawf on buildings and alleys. We got raped by those handful of RPGs, couldn't find where they were coming from. The other was dead after 2 or 3 hits and myself after 3 (mostly because I kept trying to turn to face the incoming rockets). I thought that was wonderful and a great representation of how it should be. Think of it like FH mod on BF1942, if you're playing allies you're probably not going to do much damage to a Tiger hitting it in the front, you have to play smarter than that and try to hit it where it's weaker, even if it takes a few hits, you can probably hit it multiple times before it gets to you. It's a challenge, and a lot of times it's more fun to have to fight smarter. I'd also like to add that an AT4 with Mateck's (and NWD's) setup won't knock-out a T-72 in the front either without multiple shots. This setup is much more accurate and adds a new dimension to tank combat in Arma by finally including different amounts of armor on different areas.

M1A1 HAs are vastly superior to T-72s, and some would argue, T-80s and T-90s as well. Even in close range a T-72 stands no chance. There was an engagement of M1A1s (they may have been A2s, but the armor is virtually the same) and Iraqi T-72s (Assad Babbils[sp?]) In the beginning of OIF of equal numbers of tanks. Mind you this fight was at 50 meters, that's point-blank range for tank combat. Leaving out most of the details, as I can't remember who was on the offense and if they were Marines or Soldiers in the M1s, the end result was 7 destroyed T-72s and 0 losses or injuries to the Americans. Also the only penetrations of an Abrams by a 125mm round was on the side armor (I think on the side of the turret, but the source for my info didn't specify) was at extremely close range in urban combat in the first Gulf War. The Abrams was hit thrice and none of the rounds fully penetrated, they only hit the armor and got stuck in it, causing no damage outside of temporary cosmetic damage. Which is also important to note because no Abrams has been destroyed by enemy tank fire, in fact very few have been destroyed ever (most that have been knocked out [which again is very few] have been repairable in theatre) while many T-72s have been irrepairably destroyed by M1s. Some would say this is because Iraqis used older T-72s and older ammunition, but even modern 125mm ammunition isn't as potent as modern 120mm, and if an Abrams can hardly damage another Abrams with front and side shots with it's 120mm, I am completely sure that even modern 125mms would fair no better. Also I believe the T-72 ingame is a T-72A which would mean it is one of the oldest T-72 models anyway and would probably have older ammunition. To put it simply, M1A1s have far more armor and a much more potent weapon than T-72s. And please, no one start a "this is better than that" argument over this, really all I am saying is that history has shown us that OLD T-72s can't stand toe to toe with NEW M1A1s, so ingame they don't.

What's with the middle-eastern countries getting American technology? I thought we were trying to limit the selling of our stuff (even the old things) to potentially future hostile nations. BTW, lol @ the Trojan Disaster comment

Everything is looking great and I'm enjoying your tanks greatly. Just thought I'd add though that there should be a third Vehicle Identification Panel (like the ridged ones on the side of the turret) on the rear of turret placed slightly off center to the starboard side. If you have time, you can make the USMC one slightly different by adding a tow cable that crosses diagonally from the lower to upper front hull glacis. Also be sure to add the VLQ-6 MCD (Missile Countermeasure Device) where the CITV would be. Keep up the awesome work

Thank you for the quick and curtious reply I am sure most everyone is looking forward to your tanks!

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but the little markings you have on the front of the turret that form four corners aren't markings. Their the corners of a Vehicle Identification panel like the ones you have on the sides of the vehicles. In fact the VIPs are almost always tan, regardless of the vehicles paint scheme and whether or not it's overseas. For some interesting color variants you could do the woodland Abrams with tan VIPs. I have also seen M1A1s in Iraq (and at Camp Pendleton) that are either desert colored with various portions of the maingun still woodland, and woodland painted vehicles with parts of the maingun painted Tan.

The Ta31F and RCO look the same from the exterior, so Im more than content about that. If it wouldn't be too much work could you make alternative M4s with the 31F ACOGs? In general all soldiers and Marines use either the 31F or RCO. Either way, I'm stoked to see the update

Just wonder RH, if for your M16A4s and M4s with ACOGs, can you use the RCO model ACOG (the one with the red fiber) as that is the one we use in the USMC and would make for pretty mean looking weapons in the hands of some ArmA Marines.

Hello everyone, I'm an OFP veteran working on a mod that adds the United States Marine Corps to the game, utilizing correct squad and fireteam setups that the USMC actually uses. I plan on adding AAVP7a1 as well as the C7 variant, the current USMC version of M1A1 Abrams, LAVs, Up-armored Hummvees, 7-ton trucks, and the USMC style ACOG crosshairs. Currently I am developing proper infantry loadouts and roles as well as the fireteam and squad setups, I will need help to do a lot of this stuff, anyone who is willing, please PM me and let me know what you can do and how you will be willing to help. Thanks, Semper Fi, Yat-Yas Diaz