Hellbeard

To realistically simulate the inclusion of the rules of war whichever side loses, rules will be drafted to retroactively make their actions immoral(whatever those were) and the winners will get a pass. Then everybody will have a party to sign agreements to prevent whatever that was with the foreknowledge that the only purpose of them is to appease the conscience of the masses and at the first sign of large scale conflict to be chucked out the window with no ceremony. The only other people to ever "suffer" the legal bite of these war rules will be dethroned dictators who don't have big friends.

I don't really see a need to fragment the amount of different KE rounds. You will stock the best one you can afford that can defeat the most likely enemy. I agree about the need for better armor penetration and damage simulation. Electrothermal and electromagnetic seem the most likely near future gun tech developments. Another option, like Damian90 wrote, is smarter ammunition - top down EFP seems like a good candidate(like SADARM or SMART). Agree on two latter points. You're forgetting the large difference in refracted light vs. luminescent display. Optical vision still trumps the screen in that regard. You get more wavelengths, more contrast, less strain, better visual processing with optical vision.

Doesn't matter what might have or could have been. The historical fact is that the Israeli Blazer is the first ERA kit developed and manufactured. I suppose we owe a lot to Manfred Held for it, but that doesn't make it German. Or Russian. So Leopard 2 would have been worse if not for it being better. Seriously, you are defeating your own arguments by now. There already are development into ammunition with precursor projectile to initiate protection systems. Beyond that, I don't want us to get bogged down by a technical discussion that has no substance. The information as to how and whether Duplet claims and theory have anything to them is not available making the debate pointless. I could add more about what you had written but I don't want to get sidetracked. What's the bottom line as to how ArmA3 should improve? That tanks should be impenetrable in their frontal turret? Maybe less chance of penetration with head on hits to the turret? What ammo seems more likely in the future scenario as influenced by these armor advances?

This looks super sweet! I'm looking forward to exploding stuff! Thanks for putting the effort in.

Lots of stuff here. If there's a video of a thing please link it, then we can address what it is we're seeing and what the claims are. Some advertisements have less of a hold in reality than others. The historical facts stand, regardless of whether Ukraine developed force fields. Tanks will usually meet face on and trade fire that way. That's why frontal armor is the heaviest and why ammunition is developed to defeat that armor. The Soviets were the leading developers except they never refined, manufactured or fielded ERA which makes them the not leading developers. My meaning was the M60 Blazer kit is the first fielded ERA. The reason I said Leopard 2 or Altay are more likely is because they are geographically closer. You can't always choose the best thing there is. Having one single type of armor that allegedly can stop the latest KE rounds is hardly "most modern tanks". As a matter of fact it is the absolute lowest possible minority you can have before not existing at all. I'm going to go ahead and seriously doubt that it is really that good, though the point is tangential. If everyone had Duplet then everyone would also have Duplet defeating ammunition. Measure-countermeasure.

ERA is more effective against, and designed to defeat, hollow charges. It's become prevalent due to the rise of the infantry carried ATGM(Yom Kippur war being a benchmark thereof and if I'm not mistaken the M60 blazer kit is the first one). While it might have some effect against kinetic rounds, it is far less effective against them. The rise of the tandem warhead threat caused the deployment of the Active Protection systems (I don't think there's any active duty ones yet excepting *TROPHY, again Israeli). Modern kinetic penetrators are perfectly capable of defeating most of the armor of modern tanks, or they wouldn't carry them. Manufacturers website: https://www.atk.com/products-services/120mm-m829a3-apfsds-t-ammunition/ "...The M829A3 round defeats advanced armor at extended ranges..." Tanks aren't invincible. If the round you're carrying and shooting can't destroy your enemy, you don't use it and you develop a better one. I don't want to seem dismissive or condescending but if you have a strong claim one way or the other please cite a source or give us some qualification for your base of knowledge. To be honest your idea that the most advanced kinetic rounds wouldn't be able to defeat front turret armor of modern tanks seems outlandish. What would tanks do when facing each other in combat? Just expend all their ammo at each other and then go back? PantherAI knows more about this than I, I'm sure, and might want to chime in. I believe I cited my own qualification as being an active reserve tank crewman with 12 years and counting as well as an additional 3 in mandatory service. Here's a couple of picture to lend more authenticity: I agree about the randomness of the Merkava being there. It would be more efficient to have a European machine brought there than American or Israeli. edit: Most probable might have been the Leopard 2A6 of the Hellenic Army or the Turkish Altay. *Phalanx notwithstanding, it's much bigger and carried on ships. ---------- Post added at 20:41 ---------- Previous post was at 18:54 ---------- I just remembered. I assume it's a known issue but tanks have the ability to reverse and turn at the same time, unlike their behaviour ingame.

What's important to remember is that ammunition and armor develop side by side. As one player arms himself with more effective armor, the other side develops better ammunition. If armor upgrades became so effective that they stop the round at half the engagement distance then the ammo would be replaced by a kind that can work farther away. A great example is when the Kontakt 5 was fielded and gave considerable protection against m829 (the upgrade kit has limitations - can't cover everything and you can't add too much weight and size without losing a tactical advantage) a new round was developed to defeat it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontakt-5 ...or for example when ERA was developed then tandem charges were created to defeat that. P.S. Wasn't clear from your post but the "slammer" is an IMI Merkava MK.IV and not a concept based on M1A2 SEP.

Actually 3km should be around the average range for tank engagement. I think the rounds are designed for 2km. Though the frontal armor, when presented face on, might deflect or defeat the penetration if ammo and armor are suited to one another (which they are with equivalent forces). Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M829#M829A1 "...The effective target range is 3,000 m (3,300 yd).[2] Point-blank the M829A1 is estimated to penetrate 670 mm (26 in) of steel armour, which decreases to 620 mm (24 in) at 1,000 m (1,100 yd) and 570 mm (22 in) at 2,000 m (2,200 yd).[3] At 4,000 m (4,400 yd) it is still believed to penetrate 460 mm (18 in) of steel armor...." Manufacturer website: http://www.atk.com/products-services/120mm-m829a1-apfsds-t-ammunition/ "...Target range 3,000 m..." So, between 2,000 and 4,000 meters the round loses 11cm of penetration ability. We can(probably wrongly) assume 3-5cm reduction between 2,000m and 3,000. I'm also guessing what's meant by "effective range" is 100% frontal penetration. Penetration might mean different things, though: either going through the first bit of armor and getting into the compartment behind it, or going through the target completely.

Good job BI! I don't know for sure, but I think maybe they're listening! Most targets were neutralized or catastrophically destroyed in two shots. Now, what you did there, do it again because it's still underpowered. It's not throwing a toilet paper roll underpowered like before but APC's still sometimes walk away unscathed after one shot, sometimes not destroyed and not neutralized after two. APFSDS against the t-100 were a lot more consistent and confirmed destruction most of the time by two good hits. The BTR and Gorgon seem way, way, way over armored for what an APC can be. HOWEVER, as I said before, good hits are good hits. One should suffice, for a majority of the cases to severely damage if not neutralize and destroy. ESPECIALLY for APCs which now seem to be heavier armored than the tanks. It's really a great step in the right direction, it needs to be kicked up a notch. So keep dialing up that APFSDS dial. You'll know the right level when APCs are mostly neutralized and/or destroyed in one good shot and hard targets are usually neutralized after one, positively after two. Then you know, that if the target wasn't killed, that it's that you didn't hit well and not that you didn't grind away enough HP by the roll of the dice. Two new notes: You don't have to start the engine to use the turret. Probably true for all types of vehicles. Sounds need a lot of work. Can't hear almost any of the explosions and shooting outside. The sound of the round firing seems way too dull, it really is very very loud; it's not deafening like it is outside but it's not like you're at the bottom of the sea. Engine sound is too muted. Could stand to add the sound of the case-base falling inside the turret clanging around after shooting. The breech slamming shut as the round goes in, maybe the sound of the safety engaging and the loader calling out that the round is loaded and ready to fire. The sound of the turret servos whirring, the clamps engaging and disengaging. We can then leave to ACE to add the sounds of candy wrappers tearing and crew members farting. Good job though in listening to us and improving the game! There's lots more to do, but we're going in the right direction. At least as far as I am concerned (I might not be the target audience). I'm so happy that things are moving!

Very interesting. Do you not find, however, that spotting and identifying humans and vehicles is different? For me the differences are very substantial - spotting and identifying, as well as reading the "flat" thermal image, takes great skill and knowledge. I mean, in ArmA3 all I have to do is find the bright spots, in real life I need to find those spots but then I need to "read" what they are and what environment they are in. From videos of thermal videos of gunships engaging insurgents it seems that the tank and helicopter thermal imaging gear isn't so far apart which is why I find your comment strange. A quick search suggests your plane is used for sea-recon? That would present you with a thermally uniform environment where anything of interest stands out very strongly. That's significantly different from land, I think. Guys, if the mods don't want you to discuss VBS here please refrain from doing so and stay on topic how ARMA3 can improve. Either giving input and ideas to BI or to modders reading this. ---------- Post added at 16:33 ---------- Previous post was at 16:15 ---------- Just read the new changelog: "...Improved handling of terminal ballistics on armored vehicles..." Hmmm? Let's have a look!

I think you misunderstood. Tanks should have rounds for engaging infantry, soft skins and various other types of targets. Those rounds usually are of the exploding variety so they have an HE somewhere in there. The point is that an HE round, even a fragmenting envelope HE round, has almost if not completely been phased out of all tank ammunition loadouts barring really old tanks that have a lot of cheap stockpiles and no money or cares to replace it. In future tech world, the idea that you'd use a sharpened-flint-spear as an anti personnel weapon is on the same level as using a pure contact explosive/HE round. You have options that are so much more advanced already deployed and in use TODAY that the thought of an HE round in 20-whatevs is completely bonkers. Important note for Eastern and European tank technical jargon speakers- by HE I mean a contact explosive and nothing else. To prevent a futile 4 page argument. I want to say that I am very happy to see so much support for the sentiments, ideas and points of discussion in the thread. Thanks for adding your voice. I really hope someone is paying attention. If you agree with the ideas or have your own how to improve combat vehicles please contribute and we might make a difference!

If I played it I don't recall. I think it came out when I started playing with real tanks so lacked time to play with simulated ones. I'm a big ArmA fan and I really like ArmA 3. I appreciate Bohemia Interactive very much. I hope I don't come off as too scathing when I try to stress how important I think some things are. To my eyes, with cumulative 15 years(still counting) of experience as a tank crew man as regular and active reserve, the things that look like tanks in the game don't really share any of their reality counterpart attributes. Like a butterfly pretending to be an owl. It's as if you presented me with a department store mannequin and said that it were the same as regular humans but balanced for gameplay. I know you can't artifice a person, to a lesser extent it would be herculean to create a totally faithful tank simulator. But at least tape a speaker to its face and screw wheels on the feet; and don't chop off one arm and one leg because they're too powerful. It's absurd. Ultimately, we will get the game we want(I hope). I'm disappointed that it has to be later rather than sooner and that the shortcomings I had chalked up to lack of refinement of the development was actually a game made for some other player, a wider audience type. ArmA 3 is a great tool for making that milsim game which doesn't exist yet. I appreciate that.

Re: target lock. I don't know about AA missiles or FOFs, maybe someone with experience can shed more light. It occurred to me the game will exclude certain things from being allowable to lock on according to their type. AT missile won't lock on helicopter and AA missile won't lock on to a vehicle. Isn't that strange? The locking is on a signature that's distinct to the guidance, but only from the environment. Can an AA missile guidance system differentiate the heat signature contrast of a flying object rather than one that's on the ground? It can target other factors, I suppose like radar emissions. Maybe multiple ones. My point being, having the AI or pattern recognition for a missile guiding computer to tell the difference between what it may or may not lock on to by type is too far fetched. If it has some tropic guidance like particular wave patterns of target emissions or something similar then it might make sense. Why won't an AT missile allow to lock onto a helicopter? What's so special about it?

It's the worst of both worlds. Dumbed down enough to not satisfy the core audience that loves the franchise but complicated enough to deter the wide audience of shooter players. If things are hard to learn, but the mastery of them is satisfying and interesting bringing new play horizons and possibilities, then it's worth it. It's the superior gameplay experience in my view. If things are complicated to master but learning them brings you to a place, gameplay wise, that you were at to begin with like in COD or BF or whatevs- you have missed your mark. Things like extra health/armor, balancing ammo for gameplay rather than realistic effect and crippling tanks so they don't have too much power are a poison to the ArmA game playing experience. I guess it's a strategic decision though. Time will tell if they make more money because of it and I can enjoy mods that fix it like ACE then more power to them. In my opinion it's the opposite direction to what ArmA should take.

Thanks for the support and comments guys! I'd like to say that in my opinion the thing that makes ArmA unique, and that drives my interest in it, is that it is a simulator more than a shooter. The more a simulator it is, the more it's close to what I like. When you simulate combat, you don't need to "balance" things. Reality has its own balance built in. If you have to cripple a tank and turn it into a travesty in the name of "gameplay" I prefer it be left out completely. A tank in the future shooting WWI ammo? Hobbled by removing weapon systems because tanks are too strong? Here's a bit of news from the history of warfare. Tanks really are very powerful. That's why everything since WWII. It makes me sick to see a tank without a co-axial because "gameplay" and the lowest common denominator. Like an ArmA player who's already shown commitment by learning a new way of computer infantry combat will think that operating a tank is something that needs to be simple! INSANE! Hey, I think you should have to choose between a soldier who can only throw grenades and a soldier who can shoot a rifle. But not both, that's too powerful and not balanced. I can't bring myself to play ArmA like this. I'll wait for ACE if I have to. Who is this wide audience that gamified combat is catering to? ArmA fans like it because it's not like the other dumbed down games. If I wanted "game-balance" I'd play some mindless shooter that's prettier and a hell of a lot more fine tuned than lopping off the co-ax or ammo types. Tanks should be tanks. Another point: LAZING FOR DISTANCE. Tanks can lock on a target, and then they really do LOCK ON. Tanks can measure distance by lazing. It's not one thing. To enter the range manually like in ancient Egypt is ridiculous. To have to commit only to the distance of the thing you're allowed to have a "lock" on is silly. Get rid of the target lock as it is. Get real TRACKING and lazing for distance. Lazing automatically transfer the measured distance to the fire control and "zeros" the sight. PARRALAX COMPENSATION. Yeah, up super close you'll hit different than what you aim but super futuristic computers from the 70's and 80's have solved this for close to far ranges by adjusting the sight to fit the ballistic path by compensating for the offset. They know the ballistics, they know the distance, they compensate. To hit lower left on everything is an insult. RE: Barrell launched missiles- I think realistically, in the near future you'd have either fire and forget, self guiding and or remote-camera-operated missiles. Beam riding seems to me to be already antiquated. It's not beyond the realm of reason but I'd think you would probably keep your ammo storage for effective direct fire ammo and maybe have some external launchers. RE: Mortars A mortar is a neat little job to have around if you're a squishy sack of fluids. Tanks already have superior direct fire capability. I believe that mortar fire is a waste of a tanks time. I believe that logically tanks should have a barrel mounted or independant CRWS automatic grenade launcher which is ideal for covering the mid-range between the medium machinegun's and the main gun's effective areas of engaging infantry.