Is Arma 3 authentic?

[Desert1]

Of course, though the Germans never made it at all a standard battle tank.

My point about the Merkava is that the Israelis build the Merkava to be very centered on the survival of the crew rather than the survival of the vehicle. Israel does not have a large body of available troops, so it cannot take strategic losses in a time of war. One design feature that supports this on the Merkava is the placement of the engine at the front. The main function of this is to add another object that a penetrating round must go through. As a result, you have the thicker front armor backed by an engine, which makes the crew safer, though a frontal penetration will kill the tank by knocking out the engine. Because there is thick frontal armor in the way, as well, it is very difficult to access the engine for maintenance, one of the problems with modern composite armor and one of the reasons the rear hull of most any MBT is protected by next to no armor. Because of this, there is an access hatch of some sort located I think on the lower left front hull, which is a weak point on the armor. Again, this does not concern the Israelis as much as the potential loss of the crew, as tanks can be replaced, but men not so easily.

I just think, based on indigenous tanks already designed and produced in Iran proper, for instance the Zulfiqar, would have specifically Iranian interests in mind, one of those, especially with a large Iranian "empire in Arma 3, would definitely not be manpower.

If you look at the map then it does say that the Iranians have captured and occupied all the way up to Greece, so they will most likely have used the captured army's tanks as part of their reserve ...

[daellis94]

By the way, people, the T-95 was cancelled before it went into production. Strictly speaking, the T-95 in any advanced form never existed, so BIS has some freedom deciding what the T-95 would be. Couple that with the fact that the railgun tank in the screenshot definitely has that Russian look, in fact looking very much like a Ukrainian T-84 Oplot, which is of course a derivative of the Soviet T-80U, and that tank is definitely viable T-95 material.

[fraczek]

As we have been discussing the rail-gun back and forth, could somebody point me where is it in the confirmed features? I still think it's only a speculation, and unless confirmed, should be only speculated about, not moaned about. It's no longer even in the Confirmed Features thread, and when it was, the source was only a "friend heard a friend" type of post on the forums, not a real source. Yes, the tank gun in the few screenshots looks strange. Yes, the vapour-trail in the first (CGI!) teaser looked strange. But they are not a real source. Any journalist would tell you that. I have seen enough mindless speculation in the online world, huge stories stemming from some small blurry product shot that turned out completely fabricated that I take it all with a big grain of salt. Feel free to speculate about railguns, of course, but remember that all we have about them is a speculation that for all I know started from some random comment on the first CGI teaser, no hard words from the Devs and could be all just a load of bollocks.

[Max Power]

As we have been discussing the rail-gun back and forth, could somebody point me where is it in the confirmed features? I still think it's only a speculation, and unless confirmed, should be only speculated about, not moaned about. It's no longer even in the Confirmed Features thread, and when it was, the source was only a "friend heard a friend" type of post on the forums, not a real source. Yes, the tank gun in the few screenshots looks strange. Yes, the vapour-trail in the first (CGI!) teaser looked strange. But they are not a real source. Any journalist would tell you that. I have seen enough mindless speculation in the online world, huge stories stemming from some small blurry product shot that turned out completely fabricated that I take it all with a big grain of salt. Feel free to speculate about railguns, of course, but remember that all we have about them is a speculation that for all I know started from some random comment on the first CGI teaser, no hard words from the Devs and could be all just a load of bollocks.

I think the devs said that there will be a railgun in ArmA 3 but did not state what role it would play in a Q&A session after the ARG.

[Iratus]

I think the devs said that there will be a railgun in ArmA 3 but did not state what role it would play in a Q&A session after the ARG.

So in the end it's maybe "just" a huge, static long-range artillery-like system deployed at Limnos (and the reason for the Combat Technology Research Group to investigate the island). The island would be well suited: Close to NATO borders and it has its own powersources (there is at least a powerplant and some wind energy rotors).
Probably all the rage about the "LMAO-tank" was for nothing

[Dingo8]

Disclaimer: This is by no means my area of expertise.

This is a photo of a projectile fired by a real rail-gun in test by the US Navy: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...snavy_2008.jpg
That "fire" trailing behind the projectile is apparently super-heated air caused by the intense friction of the projectile due to its enormous velocity.

Now if you take a look at the A3 teaser you'll notice something similar: http://i47.tinypic.com/2rqo7wl.jpg
There's even distortion of light moments afterwards that I would think is caused by the intense heat: http://i48.tinypic.com/34fyao4.jpg

So my question is, can this be caused by a regular tank shell, or is this an indication of a rail gun mounted on the tank? (Or did the special effects team behind the teaser get a little too carried away?)

EDIT: Some more relevant footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1q_rRicAwI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPR7JiYe7JA

[Zacho]

Its some type of non chemical gun. I only say Coil gun do it being more robust. Rail guns start to melt after a few shots.

[daellis94]

Coil guns would have the same heat effects. By that logic, either kind of electromagnetic weapon would begin to melt. That is, unless you use a coil gun whose barrel doesn't hug the round, in which case you have a lolinaccurate weapon. In that case, you'd remove friction heat in the barrel.

[Zacho]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#Heat_dissipation

Read up on how rail guns work. Rail guns push electric current through the projectile. That heats and damages the rails and the round.

[daellis94]

I understand how rail guns work, thank you. In the first place, heating the round is not really a concern, as the round will be heated by air friction as well, and do not forget rounds in conventional chemical weapons are also very hot. Where wear is a concern is the barrel. Wear in a coil gun would be very similar to a rail gun. In both you would have very high friction on the inner surface of the barrel, and you have massive heating due to the resistance associated with either the rails or the coils.