pils
-
Content Count
199 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Everything posted by pils
-
Is it just me being clueless or should Added: A script command to trigger a munition (triggerAmmo) make it possible to get us a realistic CIWS/C-RAM feature? Or at least make it easier for modders to mod such a feature into the game? One that doesn't just affect munitions added by the mod itself, but all relevant vanilla munitions as well? Plus the possibility to introduce a hardkill system feature for tanks/vehicles (like for example the "Trophy" system)? Because that would be freaking awesome!! The lack of those features in a modern/post-modern mil sim is currently one of the biggest flaws of Arma 3 imho and fixing that flaw would not only improve the game, its authenticity and consistency a lot, but also allow for the introduction of completely new, challenging and interesting gameplay factors. As well as completely new gameplay possibilities like naval warfare - including naval surface warfare, anti-surface warfare and naval anti-air warfare.
-
Mk 45 Hammer as NGS needs the artillery computer
pils replied to goose4291's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Ah I see. Alright, that should be an easy fix for the Devs. Btw. I'm pretty sure if modern naval guns weren't able to be used as artillery guns, the author would have never asked for that feature. I wouldn't call that derail either. This is a mil sim after all, of course people are going to compare the assets to their real life counterparts. Plus, BIS has pointed out several times they are working with military advisors/experts in order to achieve a gameplay as authentic as possible. (I wonder who these military experts are, since the 40mm GPR shells of the Marshall's cannon are lacking penetration for almost 5 years now ... but oh well, that's another issue ...) -
Mk 45 Hammer as NGS needs the artillery computer
pils replied to goose4291's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Here is a real life example of how the Mk 45 is being used for beyond the horizon fire. The direct competitor of the Mk 45, the Oto Melara 127/64 gun is actually specialized for the purpose of indirect fire. Oto Melara has introduced a new kind of guided ammunition with a range of more than 100 km. Way, way beyond the visual range. The Mk 45 might not be as advanced, but as you can see in the video, they're working on it. In fact the latest version has a longer barrel and they're currently working on ammunition that comes with the same features as the Oto Melara "Volcano" ammuntion: Range >100 km and active guidance. We must not forget it's 2035 in Arma 3. By 2035, the Mk 45 will certainly be at least as capable as the Oto Melara 127/64 gun in 2018. Latest Mk 45 version used for indirect fire. Fire correction via surveillance drone. Maximum elevation is 65° btw and maximum effective range >24 km. So, the gun could strike pretty much any target on Altis while the ship sitting somewhere off the coast. -
Mk 45 Hammer as NGS needs the artillery computer
pils replied to goose4291's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
100% agree. Let me quote one of my posts I made in the dev branch section: -
Yes, I know about that, too. But after all, it's the responsibility of BIS to utilize their investments and manpower in a way so that they can come up with a great product. A product the customers love - especially the long term customers. For me it seems they didn't utilize their manpower in an optimal way. Because again, form follows function and that really great looking ship is sadly of little use for the overall gameplay as long as the assets aren't able to protect it. Which really is a pity. This could have lead to one more paid DLC, a Navy DLC. It bet it would sell well, but only if the assets are actually useful and not just pretty.
-
I know they don't. So how hard would it be? Manageable for BIS Devs to implement with a reasonable (not overly massive) amount of work that is justified considering the numerous benefits such a feature would mean? Compared to implementing all the good looking interior of the destroyer? More or less work? Because that feature is worth multiple times having a ship with such nice, detailed interior that's static anyway. One rather simple bridge, a hangar and a place to put boats into the water plus a simple a way to spawn at each point would have been sufficient. Just like you can't see crawling crew inside a tank from the driver to the gunner position. Arma isn't really made for firefights inside very narrow structures. So you won't see a whole lot of missions that will utilize all that well made ship interior. But the ships would be awesome in CTI missions - however, only if there is a possibility to defend them against something as simple as mortar fire. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Oh by the way. Devs, it would be really cool if you could make the ship cannon a bit more realistic. It should have 127mm, get another magazine with armor piercing shells, have a much higher ammunition capacity, a much higher rate of fire and an artillery computer. (A longer barrel that features a hydraulic recoil dampening system would be cool, too.) For example, the most used ship cannon in the world has all those stated features. It has a rate of fire of 32 round per minute. Alright, let's say the ship is American, so they will still use the inferior American made 5 inch (= 127mm as well) gun: Link. Rate of fire: 20 rounds per minute. Number of different type of projectiles the magazine can store: 9. Total ammunition capacity in the Arleigh-Burke-Class destroyer: 680 rounds. Mk 45 gun in action Guys, never forget: "Form follows function." No matter how pretty a new asset is and how cool it may look, if it lacks its real life function/features/properties, it's of no use for a game like Arma 3. (At least it should be as close to its real life counterpart as possible). Most people who play Arma 3 seek authenticity and realism. Yes, the new destroyer looks awesome. But if you can defeat it with something as simple as a mortar and if its gun has nowhere near the features of a real life naval gun, the shiny new asset will add little to the most crucial aspect of the game: The gameplay. (Sorry for all that bitching. I wouldn't complain if this was the first time we get to play with the new assets. But that's not the case. That's actually a release candidate version, so we might end up with a very pretty new asset that however lacks a lot of its real life functionality in the main branch very soon if nobody is bitching.)
-
If that feature is so easy to implement, why aren't the Devs just finally implementing it? There are tons of people playing CTI who'd love to finally have a working C-RAM. About 2 months ago I couldn't find a single mod that reliably enabled stated feature. Plus, having a feature in the vanilla game is always the better way. Most servers run the vanilla game with just a few optional mods that only affect players individually (like sound mods). Server which require a set of mods get less frequently visited by random players. The workshop is already extremely helpful compared to back in the days of Operation Flashpoint and Arma 2, but a lot of people still don't like the "hassle" of having to download mods in order to play on a certain server. I know, it's sometimes hard to understand for us hardcore Arma lovers. But it's the reality. Which means, a lot of servers which require a set of mods to be able to play on are stuck with a very limited number of people who regularly play on that server.
-
If only the system had the same capabilities like it has in real life. I'm really disappointed that the Praetorian is still nothing but an AA gun. The real life counterpart, the Phalanx CIWS/C-RAM, has the ability to detect and intercept (shoot down) incoming mortar rounds, artillery shells, artillery missiles/rockets, AGMs, ATGMs, bombs, etc. Both the Centurion and the Spartan should be able to intercept missiles. Especially the Spartan. In real life that system was developed for one main purpose: Intercept super sonic missiles - which means, it's capable of intercepting HARM (the kind of newly introduced radar seeking missiles) in real life. It also has a much higher rate of fire in real life. Same case with the Phalanx, but we all know about the limitation of the engine in case of Gatling Guns ...
-
I've noticed ... the tracks of the Nyx are extremely vulnerable to small arms fire. A few rounds 5.56 mm, two or three 6.5 mm, one or two 7.62 mm to pretty much any track component will disable them completely. A Nyx is driving in a few hundred meters past me - one or two burst with the Zafir and the poor thing can't drive no more - making it an easy target for RPG. The impeller wheels look strong enough to resist plenty of 7.62 mm fire. Even if a 7.62 mm round fired at the side happens to graze the track itself, the track looks sturdy enough to deal with that. In fact, I wrote an email to the public relations/info department of the Bundeswehr or whatever you call that and received a friendly reply. They said the Wiesel 2 and all of its vital components are protected against small arms fire up to 7.62 mm NATO and shrapnel. They said the track is quite sturdy and will be able to take quite some small arms fire before being completely disabled. However they admitted, massive, concentrated fire from close ranges at the track itself will eventually cause enough damage to disable it - I mean yea, of course. But a few rounds to the impeller wheels should do pretty much nothing. Please consider adjusting the resistance of the Nyx tracks to small arms fire.
- 387 replies
-
- 11
-
-
-
Sorry about that, you're correct. It's the 2A7V. However, included in the process of upgrading more than 100 of Germany's Leopard 2 to 2A7V standard are the same companies which presented several different prototypes of next generation Leopard 2's, among them the 2A7+: KWM and Rheinmetall. Rheinmetall is also the company that offers (offered?) the LAHAT missile upgrade. The English wikipedia article of the LAHAT lists Germany as official operator of the missile, the German doesn't (yet?). Another source I can't seem to find again claimed Germany is supposed to aquire the LAHAT in the near future. It's really not easy to find such kind of information. So, officially there has been no statement by Germany that they're using the LAHAT. Maybe there will or they are/have tested it? So, for now not evidence to assume Germany uses the LAHAT I guess. But the 6000 m range statement by KWM for the (soon to be obsolete) 2A6 version is confirmed. Ok, that would explain why I can play at high view distances even though my PC is a couple of years old. I've delidded the Haswell-i5, replaced the shitty internal thermal pad with some fancy ass T-1000 liquid metal thermal compound and overclocked the shit out of it, lol. And I've replaced the old RAM with G.Skill DDR3-2400 with decent timings.
-
That, plus I really don't get how people still claim more than 5000 m view distance is unplayable. Again, I play on a French Liberation server on a regular basis with 20 - 30 players. Plus, you guys probably know Liberation and know it's a cooperative CTI mode that uses plenty of AI, up to like 350 or so? Even with my mediocre system (GTX 760 PC + i5-4670k [@4.5 Ghz] + decent RAM + SSD) I play with 6000 m view distance on that server and I crank it up to even 7000 - 7500 when using a jet. Graphics are fine, most settings are pretty high, terrain, objects and textures are on ultra. Yes, if the max. number of AIs is reached, FPS drop to a level where it gets a bit uncomfortable. Admins try to avoid that and with 100 - 150 AI on the map, FPS are just fine (>30 FPS). And yes, I do restart my PC every 2-3 hours. 30 FPS is my personal limit. If I get less than 30 FPS, I restart my PC (or curse at the people who activated two major towns at the same time, lol).
-
I believe it. But it shows that APFSDS projectiles still have a lot of kinetic energy left at such ranges and it's not completely pointless to engage targets beyond 3000 m or so like claimed in this thread. But I'm absolutely sure state of the art MBT FCS have the ability to process targets at 5000 m with the entire spectrum of their assistance features. In fact, I have proof. I kept digging for some more for information. The Leopard 2A6 with the new L/55 120mm gun "has the ability to engage targets at a range of up to 6000 meters" - according to the manufacturer of the actual tank itself, KRAUSS-MAFFEI WEGMANN, which is a little less secretive than Rheinmetall ;) Source (German): https://www.kmweg.de/home/kettenfahrzeuge/kampfpanzer/leopard-2-a6/produktinformation.html Additionally, I found a lot of sources that claim the Leopard 2A7+ in its latest configuration is now able to use the Israeli LAHAT missile, which has a range (if being fired by a ground unit) of 6000 - 8000 m. It's safe to assume this is true, because Germany is now officially one of the six nations that use the LAHAT missile. Since the maximum range of the laser range finder is 10,000 m (+/- 20 m), it's likely the FCS of the Leopard 2A7+ is capable of processing targets at 8000 m distance when using the LAHAT. When using 120 mm shells, it's evidently capable of processing targets at a range of 6000 m.
-
Perfect! Damage-wise it seems it was already perfect in June 2017. As said, I fired through the wood panels (30 mm MP was still showing explosion effects back then) and the guys weren't harmed a bit. The damage only occurred at the building in the back.
-
HE and HEAT are labelled. But in case of HEAT there is no info if it's a tandem warhead or not. HE variants: RPG HE MAAWS HE 9M135 HE Titan AP(!) All other variants are HEAT.
-
"The standard fire control system found on the Leopard 2 is the German EMES 15 fire control system with a dual magnification stabilised primary sight. The primary sight has an integrated neodymium yttrium aluminium garnet Nd:YAG laser rangefinder and a 120 element Mercury cadmium telluride, HgCdTe (also known as CMT) Zeiss thermographic camera, both of which are linked to the tank's fire control computer. The fire control suite is capable of providing up to three range values in four seconds. The range data is transmitted to the fire control computer and is used to calculate the firing solution. Also, because the laser rangefinder is integrated into the gunner's primary sight, the gunner is able to read the digital range measurement directly. The maximum range of the laser rangefinder is just less than 10,000 m with a measuring accuracy to within 20 m at this range. The combined system allows the Leopard 2 to engage moving targets at ranges of up to 5,000 meters whilst itself being on the move over rough terrain." Unfortunately, the source is "just" wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2). I was digging around quite a bit, but Rheinmetall seems to be quite secretive about the parameters of their products ... _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Anyway, please don't reduce the max. range of the FCS. It's just fine right now. I respect everyone who has real life experience. But keep in mind, the Leopard 2A4 was introduced in 1985. More than 30 years ago ... and Arma 3 takes place in 2035. That's 50 years! But hey, take a look at this here: "On 26 February 1991, a Challenger achieved the longest range confirmed kill of the war, destroying an Iraqi tank with an armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot (APFSDS) round fired over a distance of 4,700 metres (2.9 mi) — the longest tank-on-tank kill shot recorded." Now that's confirmed and no, it wasn't even a Challenger 2. It was a Challenger 1 during Operation Desert Storm. Hit was a Iraqi T-72. And again, that happened in 1991 and was achieved with a tank introduced in 1983. And yep, a 5000 m hit at a moving tank in Arma 3 is pretty much impossible. If both you and the enemy tank are moving ... unthinkable. But that doesn't mean we should put an artificial limit to the FCS that doesn't exist in real life. If both you and the enemy tank are stationary, a 5000 m hit is possible in Arma 3. Not easy, but possible. Plus, it's useful for shelling enemy positions with HE. Btw., I play on a lovely little French Liberation server on a regular basis with a view distance (+objects of course and terrain on ultra) of 6000 m. When using a helo or jet, I crank it up to 7000 m - because I hate that immersion breaking feeling of being in a little bulb surrounded by fog. The game feels and looks so amazing and realistic if you have 6000+ m view distance. My PC? Anything but fancy: i5-4670k + GTX 760. (CPU is overclocked though, 4.5 Ghz + good RAM + SSD, I guess that helps quite a bit) I'd rather restart my PC every 2 - 3 h or so than playing with a lower view distance.
-
Yea, I've noticed the HE shells bouncing off the ground and exploding twice, too. However, I did some testing in June 2017. I'm not entirely sure if they did anything to the system since then. But back then, I discovered something really interesting: I fired numerous rounds through the wood panels. Both the 20 mm HE and the 30 mm MP penetrated through all panels and hit the building in the back. In case of the 30 mm MP, there was an explosion effect at the panels. In case of the 20 mm HE, there was no explosion effect at the panels. In both cases, the guys inbetween the panels were not harmed! The damage occurred only at the spot the bullet was unable to penetrate - at the building in the back. I have no clue how BIS did that, but it's awesome. I have also no clue why there were explosion effects with the 30 mm MP, but not with the 20 mm HE. Yea, I thought so. But that's ok I guess if there is a decent workaround. That's alright, too. I really don't demand something overly fancy. It's Arma after all. :D I'd be satisfied if the 40 mm GPR could penetrate objects/walls like the 30 mm MP can. I'd be amazed if additionally the large caliber HE shells could penetrate e.g. into buildings as well. I'd be thrilled if additionally HEAT warheads would deal damage to infantry behind an object/wall the warhead is impacting into.
-
Regarding Arma 3 Tanks DLC Large caliber penetration inconsistency (non-AP/APFSDS projectiles) Latest dev version. Kuma and Angara are just examples, you will get the same result with any vehicle that fires large caliber shells. I've noticed you increased the damage of large caliber HE and HEAT shells to buildings a lot. So in most cases, you can blow a part of the building away with two, sometimes even one large caliber HE shell. I like that change a lot and therefore this issue is not as urgent as the one I've posted above. In fact I'm quite satisfied with your solution: No penetration but high damage to buildings, so you can quickly blow a part of the building away. I also love your work on the improved explosion damage effect you introduced a few patches ago. The only downside is the fact, that there is no “behind protection” effect (like the military contractor CTA International called it above ) in case of very strong buildings (e.g. the barracks building) which need multiple large caliber HE hits to be destroyed and even then there's often unharmed infantry left inside ... as well as in case of all indestructible buildings/objects (e.g. the office building). It's simply a bit frustrating and immersion breaking if your 30 mm MP shells will penetrate into buildings so nicely while the much more powerful 120 mm HE/HEAT/HEAT-MP can't even penetrate some shabby sheet metal. Please consider reworking the large caliber HE/HEAT/HEAT-MP shell penetration: Large caliber HE shells should be able to penetrate at least one major reinforced concrete wall. All modern large caliber HE shells do have a delayed detonation fuse mechanism (I can post a manufacturer datasheet if necessary) Large caliber HEAT shells should be able to penetrate at least one major reinforced concrete wall and deal damage to infantry behind it. HEAT/HEAT tandem warhead principle -> penetrate hard matter and shower everyone behind with molten metal/shrapnel* *introducing this to shells would mean it's necessary to apply the same to rockets/missiles with HEAT warheads at some point ... in some patch ... eventually @Mods: Please consider not to put those two posts together, since it's two different issues. Imho it's clearer to use two posts.
-
Regarding Arma 3 Tanks DLC Medium caliber penetration inconsistency (non-AP/APFSDS projectiles) Latest dev version. The Gorgon is just an example, you get the same results with any 30 mm cannon. All medium caliber ammunition, including the one used in the new vehicles, (30 mm MP-T, 20 mm HE, 35mm AA, etc.) can penetrate certain objects - which is great. But there has been this one inconsistency for years and it's still there: 40 mm GPR-T has no penetration, it can't even penetrate some shabby sheet metal. Your military advisors probably told you, that the real projectile - 40 mm GPR-PD-T is its real name - will detonate upon impact (PD = Point Detonating), while the 30 mm MP shells do have a delayed detonation fuse mechanism in real life. That is correct, however the 40 mm GPR-PD-T carries enough kinetic energy to easily punch through objects/walls and even though it's detonating at the same time, will have an effect on anyone behind that object/wall: It will throw a bunch of shrapnel at them - according to the manufacturer. Here authentic manufacturer data: Manufacturer datasheet (There are two versions of the GPR shells: GPR-PD [Point Detonating] and GPR-AB [Air Burst]. It's safe to assume we're using the GPR-PD in Arma 3.) So in short: Please rework the penetration values of the 40 mm GPR-T. It should be able to penetrate one major concrete wall (21 cm!) and cause damage to infantry behind the wall.
-
Heavy artillery fire is actuall too weak. Especially the blast effect of the 230mm MLRS, but also the 155mm. Mortar damage on infantry is realistic, just the damage against structures is a bit too high. The effective radius of an 82mm mortar round is about 35 - 40 meters. Note: - 35 - 40 meters in all directions from the impact - "effective radius" as in radius, where lethal or severe injuries are likely, especially to standing human beings
-
Uhm, the guys in the 2nd and 3rd row are on the entry (and exit) side. There was zero damage. I fired dozens of rounds at different distances - zero damage - unless it was a direct hit. Test it yourself already. Apparently you rely on obsolete data.
-
Again, even the laser range finder of the 1990s Leopard 2A5 could measure ranges up to 9999 m with an accuracy of +/- 10m. Nowadays, even civilians can buy (link) laser range finders with a range of more than 16 kilometers with and an accuracy of +/- 1m! That thing is handheld and consumes 3 W while measuring the range. Three Watt, that's 3% the energy consumption of a decent traditional light bulb, lol!
-
That's because the Leopard 2A4 is 1980s technology. It was introduced in 1985 - more than 30 years ago. And 50 years before Arma 3 takes place. Yes, actually I would like to see APFSDS rounds losing energy quicker in Arma 3. By the way, the Challenger 1 kill shot at 4700m during Desert Storm was an APFSDS round - with a tungsten penetrator, not even DU! The tank they hit was either a T-62 or T-64, can't remember which one it was. According to (link) the new Rheinmetall L/55 120mm cannon has an effective range of 4000m using DM53 shells. However, the DM53 shells have tungsten penetrators. The US forces have developed much more powerful APFSDS shells using DU (I'm pretty sure you all know about that). Adapting that kind of DU shells for the L/55 will probably get you even more than 4000m effective range. Plus, that's the effective range in 2017. It's still some time until 2035 and of course tanks can and will fire at targets beyond their effective range - especially if they are just trying to supress a position, hit a much larger and stationary (e.g. a house) or a stationary light armored vehicle.
-
I only have time for really short reply. So penetration and explosion is possible, just not penetration without explosion. (That's what I thought, too. And that's what I was talking about.) But hey, I just tested it real quick and it's not true! I tested it on the dev branch because I just happened to had it downloaded. I can't tell if they have changed anything in this regard, but I don't think so. Here, look at that and test it yourself: link (20mm HE) The shells will penetrate the panels without dealing any damage to the guys nearby, but will explode at the building and deal damage there. There is also no explosion effect at the panels. link (30mm MP) I thought there is something different, but it's just the effect. There will be an explosion effect when the shells penetrates the panels, but there seems to be no damage at all! The damage will occur only at the spot the bullet is unable to penetrate! I have no clue how BIS did that, but it shows they absolutely can do it. They can get us (nearly) realistic ballistics - even in case of exploding shells. It seems they just need to apply this on the remaining medium and large caliber shells. So Devs please. fix the shells which still lack those features!
-
Try firing the 35mm AA (Cheetah, Tigris), 30mm MP (Gorgon/BTR/Mora) or 20mm HE (Blackfoot) at a building and tell me that again. If you want, you can additionally use this here (link) to see where exactly each round is going to. You can also put AI inside the building for confirmation ... these cannons/ammo types are able to penetrate e.g. walls and "explode inside" (=> detonation occurs upon impact with a second wall - which the round is unable to penetrate due to low kinetic energy). At least that seems to be the case for the 20mm HE rounds. I can't tell if the other two ammo types behave a bit differently (2 explosions?), but the effects are very similar. Even though the way this works is not 100% realistic, it turns out whatever kind of workaround they came up with there is perfectly fine for Arma 3. It really works well and is highly beneficial for the gameplay. That's why I can't understand why they didn't implement exactly this for all the medium/large caliber MP/GPR/HE/HEAT(?) ammunition type. Note: In the early versions even leaves and bushes would make all the non-armor-piercing shells explode, which isn't the case anymore. So they clearly changed something there.
-
You might very well be right ... but man, that would seriously piss me off. Because Tanks DLC won't be before the end of 2017, I would guess. I mean, it can't be that hard to fix, can it? Shouldn't this be just adjusting some parameters? They already did it in case of the 35mm AA, 30mm MP as well as I think all helo and jet autocannons. I just don't get why they would fix these and then just stop and leave the rest of the medium/large caliber cannons broken. (I was wondering if the did it on purpose in case of the 40mm GPR, because that kind of ammo has no delayed detonation fuse and 30mm MP ammo has. But then, 120/125mm HE shells have delayed detonation fuses and behave like the 40mm GPR. Additionally the manufacturer of the 40 GPR ammo states, this type of ammunition is especially made to destroy fortifications and neutralize hostiles in buildings and behind cover. As said, the manufacturer claims it can penetrate "more than 210mm of double reinforced concrete at 1000m" and neutralize hostiles behind that wall. Since BIS consulted military advisors for Arma 3, they should know about all that stuff. 210mm double reinforced concrete, that's one serious wall. I've measured the thickness of the load-bearing, all concrete basement walls of my four-storied student dormitory out of curiousity, and they're just 140mm.) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Since I've researched the 40mm already, I might as well put a link of the data: 40mm GPR (There are two versions of the GPR shells, GPR-PD [Point Detonation] and GPR-AB [Air Burst]. So it's safe to assume we're using the GPR-PD in Arma 3.) Gotta love the manufacturer's description: Compare the manufacturer description to the Arma 3 gameplay ... yea, disappointing, isn't it? Additionally: The 60 GPR + 40 APFSDS shell loadout is only the 'ready to fire' ammo stock. The manufacturer emphasizes, that the crew can reload the cannon easily and quickly. I couldn't find any info on the maximum stock of ammo, but that certainly depends on the vehicle this system is used for ... and probably simply just on how many boxes they wanna stuff in the back of the thing. But I'd say it's rather unlikely they would move into battle with just their ready to fire loadout and without a single round of reserve ammo stock. Same case for the vehicles with 30mm autocannon and the MRAPs. Why move into battle with just two cases of .50 cal ammo. I've seen footage of US MRAPs in Afghanistan that were filled with boxes of ammo for the mounted .50 cal ... maybe 15 - 20 cases of 100 rounds each. They stuffed the thing full of ammo, using any free space. On the other hand we got the Terminator infantry carrying ceramic body armor, a 7.62mm machinegun with several 150 round cases, a high end ATGM system and not less than 4 missiles and on top a bunch of different items. Taking the very similar Javelin ATGM as comparison: The basic system + 4 missiles weigh about 70 kg altogether. 70 kg just for the Titans the infantry is running around with. So we've got the Terminator infantry running around with something like 140 kg of weapons and equipment, but IFVs have nothing but their ready to fire ammo stocked and MRAPs come with 1 ready to fire and 1 reserve box of .50cal. Pretty odd ... yea, sorry for digressing a bit.