PantherAl

Real helpful, would have never thought of that. Now, seriously, when it is selected it loads up all the settings to max, and get around 25-30FPS. Now, has anyone come up with tweaks that perform better than the auto's to get things at least up to the 40's or so? I can drop the AA and the like that does a decent job, but looking to see what others might be thinking as well.

Quick Question: Has anyone figured out what the optimal settings for 4K displays is yet? Running a new screen now, and I am pretty sure I have the horsepower, but still want to be sure. Currently using a 3820 with 32gb of RAM, SSD, 2xTitan SLI.

Not really, no. The Merk 4 was given some features that allow it to survive longer in MOUT, deletion of the loaders hatch being one, but its not a Urban Specific track. Mainly a case of the lack of elevation its weapon systems has. What Merkava line is, is a Tank that can head into a city and have a decent chance of coming out the other side, has a huge focus on crew protection, and the ability to carry on board enough Ammo to handle swarms of enemy armour on a reasonably open battlefield. For an Urban Combat Track, what I would argue for would be the Namer, with a high elevation RWS with some sort of GMG, or even better, small caliber autocannon: 25 to 35mm, perhaps, with a second RWS with a 30 cal MG. And *plenty* of smoke launchers.

I've hit 4.8gb once, when fooling about at the highest possible settings, with tons of AI (Basically spammed about 120 inf on each side with about 20 vehicles each at under 500m range from each other) having at it on the Stratis Airfield. Was only getting about 3 frames, as my CPU is only a 3820 - and lightly oc'd at that. I would second the calls for better CPU: When I built my system I cheaped out on the CPU slightly in order to get a Titan SLI setup, which in hindsight, I would have been better off with a 3970 and one Titan. :)

Wish I had some pics PC: Only stuff I saw was back during my time in the Cav when we used SA stuff as a wild card to trick up know it alls. South Africa has come up with some really good stuff that only in the past 6-10 years have really got the accolades they deserve (MRAPs are by and large a South African invention decades ago that is copied by one and all now days). Personally, the Rooikat and G5/6 are personal can't wait to see items... even if I have been on the receiving end of Iraqi G5's: most annoying when nothing you have has the range to hit back.

I seem to have missed the traffic in this thread, but yes: To get room for passengers in the Merk, you do have to give up Ammo. Nothing is for free in the AFV world. I would love to see however the TC's MG, The Co-Ax, Mort, and the external co-ax modeled though as they are a big part of what makes a Merk a Merk. I'll disagree with those that say the Merk isn't the most well protected Tank out there (I do think it is), I will agree that the level of protection is sometimes overstated to a fare thee well.

I'd kill for a seperate CV90 pack that included all the actual and proposed varients. I *love* that thing. :) I'll agree on the MTLB though: Just because most soviet stuff wasn't the greatest doesn't mean that they didn't have a winner now and then, and that track is most assuredly a winner.

The weird thing is, is that I have better luck with the basic clip as shown in Dale's post, than the fancy powered pro version.

DL the FA18 mod: They have that all built in. :) It works like you wouldn't believe.

The latest beta drivers as of 10/3/2013 seem to have an issue with Arma. Installed them, and could not get Arma to run at all. Kept crashing before I even get the splash screen. Uninstalled, and everything is back to normal: so be warned, this batch you might want to skip. :) Hardware in case it matters: 3820@4.3 Titan SLI 32gb RAM. Never had issues before this, so I believe its pretty much the drivers are not very good for us.

I second that motion on the F/A-18 Mod: that thing is the gold standard as far as I go. :)

Not saying we don't: we've had TA missiles long before the Javelin. Heck, the Swedes Developed the Bill back in the 70's that was the first ever Top Attack Weapon, and we copied it into versions of the TOW2 not long after. But most systems are still direct attack because of cost/design reasons: its just easier, and cheaper, to design a accurate weapon that goes right at the target. After, who cares if you are 10 metres long or short? The tank is still in the way of the Missile. It wasn't until the 90's that guidance systems started catching up with the accuracy demands that a top attack system requires.

Absolutely: Top Attack is the wave of the future. There is no way you can armour the roof of an AFV enough to proof it against even medium sized ATGM's. Too many hatches, optics, sights, you name it. You can make it durable, proof against near misses, but that's it. My beef with IFV's in general, is they are too lightly armoured, and by and large, trying to do too many things in one platform. Take the Brad (Please!): Its a light tank, when its not a tank destroyer, when its not an APC; and to get a full "squad" in it, and the missiles, and the cannon, and the ability to swim, they had to make to make the armour a joke. Sure, later models added armour at the cost of swimming and added weight, but still. To be a proficient Bradley crew, you have to know not only how to deliver troops, but also how to support troops, how to stalk tanks, how to perform recon, all that. Its silly. When attacking a town, you can't lead with MBT's since a Tank in a urban battlefield is naught more than a tasty target to skilled defenders. Main Gun can't elevate enough, for starters. Big, Bulky, and Heavy as well. IFV's, therefor, are trained to attack the town (At least the cannon can elevate as high as needed) whilst the tanks provide support by fire. All good. Just hope you killed all that AT in town though: As the Israeli's discovered the hard way, you can shoot all the arty you want: the AT always survives, and will eat light armour up on the approach to the outskirts. That's why they went into Heavy APC's in a big way, starting with modified Centurions and T55/62's. They also believe adding all that firepower to an APC is asking a crew to try to do too much, so all they gave it was 1-3 RWS's. Once they saw the T55 based HAPC's work, and work really well, they went for broke with the Namer: Or Panther as we call it in ARMA. Heck, the Lima Army Tank plant got a contract back in 2010 to produce some for the IDF since the Israeli factories was swamped with MkIV construction. I do know back in 2012 the US Army played with a few to see if we wanted to buy them as part of the GCV program, but since it falls into the NIH syndrome, I doubt anything will come of it. If you have to have an 'traditional' IFV, go with the CV90. It doesn't bother with ATGM's, and while a little shorter than a brad is a little bulkier. Which is used well, as its protection level - while being amphibious - is equal to or greater than the uparmoured Brad. Also, it actually has all the room you can ask for when it comes to infantry capacity in full battle rattle, and has a pretty darn good gun: Bofors 40mmL70. Dual Purpose, and has that oh so lovely 3P round that not only has a prox fuse for AA work, a contact (With optional Delay) for bunker busting, but allows it to do Direct Indirect Fire (Basically, lase the crest of a ridge, punch a few buttons, and it will fire a three round burst set to airburst 5-25 meters behind the crest, and about 5 metres over it. Hills no longer provide good cover. ;) But that's not the best part: The best part is unlike say, a typical Heavy Cav Troop, where you have umpteen different vehicles, none of which shares parts, an entire family of tracks: IFV, APC, Command Post, ARV, FIST-V, SPAAG, SP-Mort (120mm Double Barreled Semi-Auto Morts to boot), 105mm Light Tank, 120mm Light Tank, and a FDC. And they have done mock ups of 155mm SPG's, and ATGW platforms. You can equip an entire division with nothing but CV90's...

Light armour? Sure, I buy that. The Brad's armour is a joke, and a bad one at that. Traditional IFV's was a dead end path for AFV's anyways. But when it comes to heavy MBT's, I would say the proof is in the pudding. No verifiable kills of M1's through the front slope has happened, same goes for the Merk, the Chally, or the Leo2, which has seen service in the rockpile. Granted, only the M1 and the Chally has taken fire from Main Guns, And only those two and the Merk has faced top notch ATGW's. Now from the sides, or the underside, sure. That's doable. And has been done many times.

I loved my TIR for a while - but now for some reason it spazzes out when I look right, and then shoots my view straight up. Getting very annoying - to the point I stopped using it. Which is a shame, as I *really* liked it.

Untill I see Vid, not going to buy it. I can believe it causing a mobility kill, either by taking out the final drives, or hitting the hatch of the driver (and killing poor said sod), but the bit about "How good Mossad is..." puts this in tinfoil hat land. :) But even a Mob-Kill won't do anything to hinder its fighting ability. It just became a well armed pillbox provided the surviving crew keeps it together and doesn't panic and run.

Speaking from first hand experience, one of the tanks in my platoon in Iraq took a hit *on* the turret ring (Great shot by the insurgent, that guy was good) from what looked liked an oversized RPG of different design than that of the RPG7. Don't know what model it was since it was soon eaten by a cannister round, but.. it made a hell of a bang. And left one heck of scorch mark on the tank. Destroyed the NBC system, ripped the loaders box off, and sheared off one of the radio arials and jammed the ring for a minute or so till they was able to work out the fragments that was jammed up in there. But that was it. Have to see if I still have the pic somewhere.

*laughs* That P38X would be rather cool. I know back in the 80's they did a massive rebuild, including a turboprop, to the P51 for COIN. Didn't go anywhere, but it was cool.

It's a Swiss Pz68. But was, that's a pretty good battle theory question. Which is better? Heavy Armour that has all the ability in the world to stop 90% of all attacks, or, since 90% of all serious AT weapons aim for the title of "Most Overkill" why bother? It comes down to no chance of survival to decent chance. Light Armour, say my personal favorite, the CV90120, has the firepower to handle about anything it sees. Sure, not the most modern of western tanks from the front, but, more than enough otherwise. It does come with a supplemental Armour package that protects it from most RPG hits, and is dirt cheap and simple to use compared to a state of the art MBT. In a peacetime, or peacekeeping army, this is the way to go. But if you have to design a army that you know will have to fight, and fight hard, you have to understand that you will lose a *lot* of them, and the crews that are in them. At that point, the MBT is the better buy. Of course doctrine will trump all, but generically speaking, it is a good rule of thumb.

Well, yes and no. You can always build a bigger gun. For example for a while the US and Germany was working on a 140mm gun that would fit in the Leo and the M1. And the performance was all that you could ask. A few downsides, ammo was stupid heavy, and the barrel was a tad long:

The problem is, when you read things pumping up the capabilities of this or that, is that its all done in ways to sell stuff. Tests are rigged: on both sides. The only thing that really counts is actual use in live ammo fights. In that regard, Eastern (Sov/Russ) designs have come out as nothing more than expensive target practice for western designs. Not all is great for the west: as mentioned in other threads, the Soviets have at times pulled some pretty impressive rabbits out of their hats. Gun launched ATGMs, though first used by the US Army, was abandoned by the US, the Soviets on the other hand, took it, ran with it, and proved it would work. Granted, they had too, as the ability of the Russian 125mm gun at range sucks at best, but at least they saw the issue, and found a fix. A habit others can learn from here in the west. Russian style armour protection, ERA and otherwise, simply isn't up to the same standard as western: The maths just don't add up. T90 comes in 20 tons less than an M1, yet the gun is about the same weight, the engine, though larger than the T90's, is about the same weight, and while it does carry more fuel, it isn't that much - so the lost weight has to come from somewhere, and while some of it can be accounted in its smaller size, you still have tons of armour protection you have to shed to get to the T90's weight. Now, like the Gun Launched ATGM, the Russians know this, that's why they have put so much effort into ERA as a way to help defeat the better western ammunition. And don't doubt that western Ammo is better: the only time the Russians can sell Tank Ammo is when they sell to someone that can't buy western, or that they are not giving away via 'loans'. There is a huge international market for western manufacturers to build ammo for Russian guns using western concepts and materials. Particularly the propellant - for some reason, to this day, the Russians can't get as good as we do. It boggles my mind since there is no real reason for them not too: they have the knowledge, the capability. Russian Chemists take a back seat to no one, yet.. they can't do it. One of the reasons they pushed the ATGM project so hard. The Russian ERA is good stuff: I will freely admit. But its not magical. ERA can work to a degree against KE, but not even close to what is claimed. If the high end ERA was that good, the west would be using it: its a heck of a lot cheaper than the stuff we do use for armour for starters. Leo2? Not good? Seriously? The latest versions are almost as good as the M1/Merk in protection, and slightly better in firepower due to its souped up main gun (120L55). And saying the Merk isn't survivable is laughable at best. Having served on M1's, and as a former master gunner, even I will say the Merk has us on this. Heck, the Merk is faster than a M1 in rough terrain believe it or not, and its armour protection is at least as good: having the engine up front just makes it even better. Especially from a Crew Protection viewpoint. If I had to pick the top tank, it would honestly be the Merk. I am a huge fan of it, even though I served on the M1, both in peacetime and wartime, I just feel the latest marks (3 and 4) are just that good. When it comes to active protection systems, while the Russians took a early lead in it; remember that they are not stupid, they saw the obvious weaknesses in the design path they went down, they just didn't have the tech to make it work as well as it needed to in a modern environment. Came close, I'll give them that, and the US didn't really even bother trying. It was the Israeli's that perfected it. As to Duplet: Good ERA, I'll give it that. But not that good, and as cheap as it is, how come no one wants it? That's the only test that really matters. ---------- Post added at 01:33 ---------- Previous post was at 01:27 ---------- Heh... yeah, reverse and no steer is a weird bug to have. But as to the Phalanx, there is a version mounted on the back of a Hemmit, was used to knock rockets and mortar rounds out of the sky around the Green Zone. I *really* want to see an Air Defense version of the M1. They played with using a GAU-8 in the turret of a M48/60 during the whole Sgt. York debacle, and I would love for them to try it again - especially now with GoalKeeper sensors and software, and Ground Launched AMRAAM's, which is all very very doable. But, so you are a Merk crewie eh? Only got to crawl around the outside of a Mark 2, never got to get really hands on with one. Have to share stories of the weirdness that it must have. :)

I'll second getting as much VRAM as you can, while its only happened once, I have topped 4GB in one bench session. Though to be fair, to get that high the game was slowed to an unplayable crawl.

You don't want a lot of systems on an AFV: The more you have, the more than can and will break, and the more you have to train with. Training time is a zero sum game, so.. less the better. Main Gun, Co-Axial MG, And One or two MG's for the loader and commander. As far as ammo types, having a choice is good, but you don't want umpteen different types - When you try to have a round for every use, you always wind up short of one of them when you least can afford it. Cannon for Co-Ax sounds good on paper, but doesn't play out well in reality: Cannon are generally larger than a MG, and ammo storage is a lot more so than the storage for a MG in the Co-Ax role. As to defensive systems, if they don't take the attentions of a crew member, great, otherwise, time spent working that has to come from him working something else. Once more, complexity is not a good thing. :)

Seconded: Also, The Merkava has a loader, and someone should be allowed to mount in the loader spot, and serve not just the loaders MG, but the loaders 60mm Mortar. Secondly, regarding Ammo. Both tanks should have beam riding missiles. This is something the Soviets/Russians pushed hard, and the Israeli's copied with the LAHAT.

No doubt. KE is horrid in A3.