kireta21

Sloping armor only increase LOS value. Sloped armor may be thiner while providing same LOS thicknes, but at the same time armor plate have to be larger, so in the end weight/protection ratio is nearly same. It was very usefull, often causing rounds to ricochet till 60's, when modern APFSDS rounds were developed. Hard to tell. Kaktus and Relikt have never been installed on tanks, with exception of few prototypes. Russian tanks are using Kontakt-1 and Kontakt-5.

AI medics are handled by squad leader. 1. AI soldier reports getting hit to squad leader. 2. AI squad leader orders medic to treat wounded. 3. AI medic goes to wounded soldier and heals him. If squad leader is human, he has to issue orders himself, same as AI squad leader does. First Aid Module is something different. It allows linked units to be wounded to the point of beign unable to fight, but still alive.

Well, 20 bucks it's what I've already spend on beer alone this month. And it's just 8th:).

It's possible, but inadviced. If there's no time to deploy proper fire position, launcher tube should be rather rested at any solid object. Otherwise there's quite big risk gunner will lose ballance when 14kg dissapear from his shoulder and may lose track of target, hit ground or be unable to guide missile back in time. Same was experienced with M47 Dragon, probably main reason why Javelin was made fire-and-forget.

Modern tanks Russians lost in Grozny 1999 would like to have a word with you. No M1 or Challenger 2 lost to RPG in Iraq is rather result of proper tactics, organization and support. It's all about not allowing your enemy to attack in any way with considerably good chance of success. And IF they succeed not allow him to finnish the job. Which is easy if they have only RPGs of any kind. In "real" war immobile tank is a coffin with gun attached. Any tanker will tell you that. AT-14 Kornet(man, WHY I always write "Komet" first?:D), Bill2 (top attack as well) or Spike are doing exactly same job, just can't be shoulder-fired, so have smaller offensive capability. Ever heard of SMAW or Carl Gustav? When not used against armored vehicle RPG-7 is still VERY usefull as kind of shoulder-fired mortar with a telescopic sight. Just as mentoned western designs. Also you need to realise hand-helds are not designed to kill tanks, but to provide infantry with weapon that ALLOWS (and not much more actually) them to defend themself against AFVs. Tanks will ALWAYS have a big advantage, unless in successful ambush. As anti-tank RPGs and LAWs are strictly defensive weapons.

You're forgetting one thing: M1 is also bigger than T-72, especially turret. For example front profile of T-72B is 5.85m^2 vs. M1A1's 7.05m^2 (may differ a bit in variants). That means M1s frontal armor needs to be already 20% heavier (if theoritically using same armor type) to provide same protection level. Nothing is free. For example PG-7VR has impressive penetration when compared to PG-7VL, but it's almost twice as heavy, so it has less than half of it's range. M136 have impressive lethality against light armored targets, but at cost of medicore penetration. It turns out best way to increase penetration of KE projectile is to... increase its kinetic energy :p. Thus short rod penetrators evolved into long rod penetrators, and become longer and longer, and heavier. Interesting enough, Chinese prefer light penetrators fired at high velocity, because their doctrine says tanks would fight each other at 500m-1000m, which I find quite ridiculus. But I'm no Chinese strategist, so I may be just clueless armchair general :D.

You're kidding me right? M829A3 with overall length of 892mm is the longest 120mm round in use. If it can fit - anything can.

I'd like to ask for T-62 in Takistani Army colours. Only T-62 I know about is made by Vilas, in Soviet colours.

Exactly. All you have to do is upload data for new round, and voila! This is the point of standardization.

. Side armor insert of this tank was removed to be mounted on another tank. So not as much "solid chunk of armor" as you think

You do realize in many modern tanks armor can be upgraded just like a gun or engine? M1A1 and M1A2 SEP have essentialy same armor, but new inserts give latter nearly twice as much protection as former have and Leopard 2A6's base armor is same as it was in A4, just with spaced add-on armour on turret. Also, all estimates (even French ones) give Leclerc quite poor protection for a modern tank.

Not sure here, it's been years ago, during developement of PT-91 tank, so in early 90's. Article was mainly about results for ERAWA-2 armor, results for K-1, and K-5 were quoted to compare new ERA with other types. Still this has been 15 years ago, so I might've just mess something up :p

If I recall well, Dynamit Nobel Defence performed real life firing tests in early 90's. They shoot out lots of ex-NVA T-72s, and a few uparmored tanks they bought. Apparently while T-72B with K-1 ERA could be penetrated with 105mm KE round, T-72B model 1988 with Kontact-5 ERA proved itself hard kill even for M829 DU round. Note "can penetrate" means there's >50% success rate. Besides RL battlefield results are usually mix of technology, training and luck, and only the first can be tested, so all such tests provide wide error margin. I also heard few T-84s (3 or 4 tanks) were bought by USA during M829A3 developement, but there was nothing about results of these tests.

Only with Kontakt-1 ERA, which was added during production, apparently early production models were uparmored later. Sometimes ERA equiped model is referded to as "T-72BV", made-up model name, similar as AK is commonly called AK-47 to distinguish it from later models. But yeah, ArmA2 T-72 can be some other variant. Do Russians actually have any tanks w/o ERA in service? I mean, in 80's they were adding it even to obsolete tanks like T-55. That's the first armor simulation system that came to my mind. Fairly realistic (for a game), but still simple. I think it would suit game even better than Steel Beasts-style hardcore realism. But that's just my opinion here.

Depends on tank. Soviet design tanks explode quite often because there's ammo stuffed just about everywhere, so penetrator is very likely to hit the ammunition. Tanks used during 2nd battle of Grozny had their ammo reduced to 22 rounds (no ammo outside autoloader), and that increased survivability greatly. Most tanks have ammo in 2 places. While main storage is relatively safe in turret rear, there's also hull storage like in that Leo2A5: http://img815.imageshack.us/i/ft6fbvfnigoomc5c8cb3.jpg/ While effect on hit would be same (kabooom!), it's surely much smaller target, so direct hit is less likely. Of course without direct hit ammo can ignite as well, just effect is much smaller (but tank out of action anyway), like in Basra when one Chally 2 was lost in friendly fire incident. HESH round managed to ignite few rounds inside tank, still 2 crew members survived blast. AFAIK, only tank immune to such explosion is M1, thanks to its blast door separating ammo from rest of the tank.

I'd like to remind you balance problem OP pointed: Let's compare ArmA2 armor values and RL armor values at its strongest point. T-72 - 690HP. T-72B (w/o ERA) est. armor - up to 400mm vs. KE. T-90 - 800HP. T-90 ets. armor - up to 830mm vs KE. M1A1 - 850HP. M1A1HC (oldest model in active service) armor - up to 900mm vs KE M1A2 TUSK - 900HP. M1A2 SEP - up to 960mm vs KE. So game already greatly favours old T-72 in term of armor. Main difference is here: Sabot 120mm - 800DMG. M829A3 can penetrate 760-800mm at 2km. Sabot 125mm - 650DMG. BM-42M can penetrate 600-650mm at 2km. So OK, these are kinda based on real life ammunition. Balance isn't bad. Tanks damage system is. Still, with more realistic system game would be just as unbalanced as it is now. And T-72B vs M1A2 SEP TUSK (age difference is over 20 years) would be a turkey shot,

When campaign started, yes. But lots of 'em was blown to bits by air support before first M1's reached battlefields. Anti-Iraqi coalition performed real-life test of strategy they planned to use in case of Soviets invading Europe. First, secure air superiority and neutralize enemy AA defence. Second, shred enemy armor to pieces with close air support. Third, send tanks to mop up what's left. Seeing how effective it was in Gulf, it seems Soviets did the right thing putting so much time and resources on developing their air defence systems.

Yeah, this is something that's bugging me since OFP. It could be very handy. While M24/M1014 sounds kinda weird, M16/M24 or M16/M1014 not at all. Aparently some USMC snipers in Afganistan do carry M16's, as experience gained during prolonged counter-insungency campaign shown clearly to them it's just good idea to have "power of M16" as well. Also I always feel uneasy when throwing out my issued rifle because I'm out of ammo. I mean, seriously, IRL you'll get court martialed for loosing your gun! It could be dealt with backpacks, but again, no backpacks for A2 units, and not any weapon can be put in backpack.

Of course, as beign lighter, 5.56mm loose power quicker than 7.62mm. M16 maximum wounding range is ~1100m, AK's ~1500m. Battle rifles and MGs can usually wound/kill above 2500m. When you fire rifle at enemy at +500m behind cover it's just supresson anyway. MGs and DMRs are doing the actual killing.

But flesh =/= cinder. 7.62 will work better against body armor, but when it comes to soft human body there's no big difference. http://img846.imageshack.us/i/1198563676349.jpg/ Though it's worth notice M855 likely won't fragment under ~2600ft/s. Which is why fragmentation occur usually at short ranges, especially with short barrel weapons like M4. But that's fine by me. IRL you don't need to kill enemy at medium or long ranges, injuring him is usually enough. He's out of action anyway. At close range when you need to put him out immiedately, and you can't really coun't on pain factor (as he's pumped full of adrenaline or/and drugs) bullet fragmentation is more than handy. Apparently Chinese Vietnam-era 7.62mm AK bullet could fragmentate as well thanks to crappy quality, though when fired it could also fly wherever it felt to, for same reason :).

It might be "C01Convoy", the one which started with convoy beign ambushed and you lead survivors to Lamentin, to support town defence. The longest (and most buggy :) )single mission in OFP I believe.

Maybe for large caliber rifles. For 7.62mm sniper rifles 1200m is an extreme range. In fact the longest confirmed kill with "regular" sniper rifle is ~1250m made with M24. I think AI don't attack at long distance unless fired upon because of Still, AI equped with scoped weapons and binoculars should be able to confirm/deny target (when spotted by squad) at longer range for sake of realism.

Great idea bringing it to ArmAversum. Vilas stuff is always awesome, just Cold War Era paintjob somehow doesn't fit reality of Chernarus and Takistan.

I think it could be material for "proper" DLC. Some updated old stuff + some new. Scenario could be border skirmish between Takis supported by USMC and Russians for whatever reason. Good excuse to improve 3 sides. Other than desert camo, USMC could use more LAV-25s, both mortar carier and anti-tank variant (they gonna fight Russians - they WILL need serious firepower :D ), M1A1SA with TUSK kit, the most modern tank in USMC use. And obviously CH-46 ad CH-53. Takis could be fitted with some new gear, they rebuild their army from scratch afterall. Import variants of modern MBT's like T-90S, T-84 or Leopard 2A6TK (fictional Leopard 2A6 variant build for Takistan), import Mi-28 etc. They have oil, they can pay :D. Russians could get T-90A (in vanila we have early 90's variant), Mi-28, BMPT, some SPGs like 2S9 or 2S19 wouldn't hurt too. Fixing some realism issues, like replacing AK-107 with AK-74M, or adding scopes for RPG-7 would be very welcomed. All of above fitted with OA functions OFC.

Radar operator knew where F-117 was, even before detecting it, thanks to ground observators and bomber itself flying excactly same route for the third time. It was all about separating target from radar noise. So it's kind of irrelevant. NATO doctrine was not to engage Soviet armor in head on fight, but to clean sky first, rape T-xxs with close support aicraft and anti-tank helis, and THEN finnish what left with their own tanks. This is why Warsaw Pack had best air defense ever, both quanity and quality, as countermeasure to expected NATO air superiority, to force NATO armor to head on fight they wanted to avoid. But I think we're going a bit offtopic, even if discussion itself is interesting nonetheless.