Ollie1983

Thanks, very interesting. Quite an interesting vehicle, and very effective by the looks of it, or potentially so.

Yes, I find the TAW servers are usually quite stable, popular and frequented by the same people. Unfortunately there seems to be major trouble with hackers in them recently. I was in a game the other day when suddenly a hail of laser guided bombs fell out of the sky and completely levelled the base. Then the screen went black and it said: 'you've been pwnned muhahhah' or something similar. Other times we would get into vehicles and fly or drive for a minute or so and then it would automatically run out of fuel.

Oh well, that is tough. On a slightly different note, I seem to remember the Canadians have a mobile anti aircraft SAM launcher that also doubles as an anti tank system, does anyone know the name of it and its abilities??

IE TAW NEWYORK/ EU etc. Not sure if any of you guys frequent this place but I've had an absolute ball on the TAW New York server these last few weeks. Generally transatlantic player mix, but the American guys who run the servers or TAW clan members always play seriously, last night we were in convoys playing domination, excellent team play with some top notch helo and CAS pilots. Fully recommend these guys to anyone whether novice or veteran players, if you are looking for a sensible, mature style of play, with a good enjoyable and straight forward server setup, then look no further. I was the one driving the Abrams most of the time, me and a buddy really made an impact on the game, taking out hard targets in most AOs, and supporting our infantry in Hummers etc. Generally had a good time with minimal friendly fire for a change too (everything looks like an enemy on IR). Much better than some of my games I played in last month- you know the ones, senior clan members hope into clan only Apaches and A10s and then proceed to absolutely level every AO and leave nothing for anyone else. Instead TAW had convoys of support vehicles and hummers etc on scene, following my Abrams and a Bradley, with some occassional A10 support. It was amazing just to watch all the guys deploy on foot and spread out and sweep the AO, A10 taking down bad guys, snipers shooting from a far, someone launching a TOW from the back of a hummer etc. Just really good old fashioned team work. I think a lot of it is down to the server not being set on ridiculous difficulty levels? It was unusual to see pilots and people just driving trucks to keep the armour and vehicles repaired and rearmed, so I guess to finish up this post I'd like to say a thank you to those guys who frequent the TAW servers.

You're getting a bit worked up over nothing, really. I shoot T-72, it is killed, job done. Next target, please. F35 will be a beast of an aircraft when fully operational and deployed, I love flying it, absolute joy to fly.

You aren't funny. If you feel unable to comment on the subject at hand, I'd generally recommend not posting at all. Personal attacks and other useless vitriol, are best posted via PM so people don't have to read it or have perfectly good threads spoilt by children.

Soldiers are advised not to smoke at night. The tiny glow of a cigarette can be an ideal cue for a sniper. I am buggered if I would want a light on my head at night.;)

It would be nice to have a complete loadout feature for all vehicles including all the variants of the ammo they can carry. I believe the thermobaric hellfire is a later model.

Finally, someone with some genuine understanding of the wider subject. The Russians had massive advantages with numbers, and also had more of their units closer to the battle line- West Germany was simply a matter of starting a tank engine and ploughing forward. The West realised this long ago, the West were very afraid of the walls of soviet armour not least their front line units but also because the Soviets had a tendency of storing away old equipment for years- they never threw anything away. It is highly likely that losses would have been high on both sides, but the Russians would have probably got their tracks across most of Germany in the early days. Then the problems of resupply of all those vehicles would have mounted up. There is also the nuclear option and the West had a serious plan for using nukes against the armoured columns which is why things like the Davy Crockett were dreamt up (obviously a very old example, soon replaced by much more sensible designs later on by the Lance etc). A quick bit about the T-34 though, it was a war winning machine. Firstly, it had sloped armour and was physically smaller than the German designs. This made it a bit more resistant to German shells, without the weight penalty, and also harder to spot. In addition it had a relatively light weight with broad tracks- giving good flotation in the sodden battlefields of the East. It was also reliable and had good cross country performance. The Russians also perfected tank and infantry combined operations- they rode on the back of T-34s. German tanks might have had incredible firepower (that 88 high velocity gun was a beast) and tough armour but they were too few in number, and spent half their time bogged down or broken down. The IS series of tanks was even more devastating, I have read many anecdotes about them, again, curved armour was used, they had good mobility and excellent protection for the crew. The close support version was also heavily armoured and caused a lot of mayhem in the East. A lot of the successes the Germans enjoyed was because of their training and mindset- the 88mm cannon was a prime example. Absolutely devastating weapon in all theaters, and used to good effect. The British had a comparable weapon which was actually superior- the 17pdr but it was never deployed or used in that role or in those numbers. They wised up to it later on with the introduction of machines like the firefly but it was getting a bit late by then. On yet another aside, Hitler should never have invaded Russia. Stalin was frightened of him, he could have got all the concessions he wanted by using diplomacy and threats, but he was too egotistical and went off against Russia despite the fact that countless armies have perished in the cold wastes there for all the same reasons.

I like this thread too, because I do take everything seriously, these kinds of topics are of good academic interest. Whereas others just seem to want to argue because they are pro-soviet fanbois. For the record, I'm not American and could not give a flying fig about the equipment used by east or west. What does concern me are those who seem to think the Soviets were supermen or had invulnerable equipment. When clearly, that is anything but the case. I had a great time on Arma 2 OA at the weekend, in an M1 Tusk, I was hammering town after town, it is great fun hitting Taki armour with Sabots and watching them catch fire or explode. Then you use HEAT rounds on the M113 or BTR type vehicles, cripple them and then machinegun their crews!! :D I'm uncertain which exact vehicle it was but I think I had a go in a captured BMP the other day, using its cannon I really hammered some enemy gear with that, the smaller auto cannon being particularly useful for soft skinned trucks and APCs. Anyway, my reign of thunder was brought to an abrupt end because in one of the later towns there was a full arty battery that our air power had not zeroed out and they hit us by firing over open sights, leaving us seriously damaged. Then we promptly ran out of ammo for all our weapons and had to go on foot.

lol! Another Soviet fanboi who is apparently so set in his mindset that he can't face reality. I could not care a damn about east vs west, I have no interest in their equipment, specifications or costs at all beyond a mere academic one. What concerns me is this daft notion that somehow a backward and economically crippled nation managed to produce vastly superior equipment to anything the west has fielded when the amount of money spent by the latter was many times the former!! I do laugh at the pro Russian folk here on this thread, and I wonder just who is living in 1980. Despite actual fact being thrown in their faces at every turn they STILL refuse to accept that their view point is wholly and utterly 180 degrees out! You reckon the Russians sell more arms than anyone else? What by volume, total expenditure, units sold, number of customers etc etc??? You haven't a clue have you? What basis did you arrive at that opinion from then? Every man you see on the news is armed with an AK-47? Obviously they all came from Russia then, weren't built under license or copied or anything... Really now, how old are you characters? When someone posts a clearly amateur website and claims it is on an equal footing to Janes, it does smack of foolishness. But what do I know, apparently the T-90 is utterly kick ass and the people who made Arma 2 were just biased or something...:D Many thanks for the great discussion and fun I have had here on this thread. The one about the Elbe river was just comedy gold in particular.

The way CQB is handled in Arma 2 is utterly pants and one reason not to get involved in it. Its like two men trying to box each other when half buried in thick treacle. The game just can't do it. Its far from rainbow six. In reality the defender of a building would have a massive advantage and the attackers would need a massive advantage in numbers and firepower to succeed. A smart defender is going to fire at you long before you even get outside the door or walls of a building. The way I clear buildings in Insurgency is by holding the walk button and having my weapon down the sights all the time, using full auto I put brief bursts through door ways and walls. Grenades are a waste of time because there is never enough of them. The problem is having a rainbow 6 style mechanic to the game for CQB would make the longer range engagements (IE the bread and butter of the game) much too easy, so its a question of balance i guess. Having more firepower or load outs is not an option, having blufor level an entire town to clear it of hostiles is unrealistic because it would never be done and they would never have the resources for it.

Errr, all their data and intelligence is open source. The very fact they have been at their game and are respected internationally and in many industry circles, I think, makes them 'experts' in my understanding of the term. Perhaps you have data to suggest the contrary, though. please do share it. Again, apparently western manufacturers are all corrupt and produce utterly crap designs and are forced to fabricate performance reports. That being the case, one does wonder why foreign powers spend so much money with them... Corruption and deceit was basically a way of live in the Soviet union. Such was their fear of the West. It would appear that even non-FSU residents are prepared to accept their claims. Thank heavens Beagle is not responsible for defence procurement.

You do have some peculiar views mate. There is a simple reason why Western designers had to to be very specific and careful with their claims about their products, not least because their competitors (IE other western companies) were trying to sell similar equipment and any illegitimate claim would be torn to pieces very quickly, which looks bad to your customers when you are trying to sell them multibillion dollar defence projects.... I'm going to have to admit I had a great laugh at your .RU website and your claims it was as equally valid in subject matter and evidence when compared to Janes- an international organisaton of certified experts who use verified data and sources. Unlike some Soviet fanboi website written by a collection of guys all dreaming of the resurgence of the soviet union...

Oh right. So a Russian website reporting the performance of Russian equipment, you would say this has the same gravity as say Janes?