purepassion

Is Arma 3 authentic?

1125 posts in this topic

It doesn't matter for me really, if It's just BLUFOR then I'll just steal one and repaint it in OPFOR colors. (you can do that in A3, right?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, BIS call it a T-95, see the
@ 0:37.

Actually, the thing in the teaser looks more like Merkava. The hull is what gives it away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, the thing in the teaser looks more like Merkava. The hull is what gives it away.

I was talking about the display, it identifies the tank as T-95 (middle right, small letters)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I saw it, but while in the teaser the "Merkavish" tank is armed with a railgun/coilgun type of a gun and named "T-95", in the actual screenshots only "Object-640" can be seen with that type of gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would work just the same as rings, current deosn't really care whether they are round or not.

Stricktly speaking though, the shell would be a pain to make fly straight.

I think the magnetic field strength is a function of your proximity to the magnet. So, I think that a trapezoidal coil would be most effecient for a trapezoidal projectile.

I think, if it is indicative of anything, the squarish barrel is hinting at a pair of rails.

I think someone pointed out that there was a real life design or concept for a cannon with square sides and it was more of a stealth thing than a railgun thing but I am not sure I recall correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :yay:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

This is a photo of a projectile fired by a real rail-gun in test by the US Navy: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Railgun_usnavy_2008.jpg/285px-Railgun_usnavy_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:

Edited by Dingo8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Would actually be the current causing the heat as the coil resistance would be quite low. ;)

@ Iratus, a wind turbine couldn't power a mouse fart BTW, they are the white elephant of todays technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning the MI48 Kajman, it's remain a fictive helicopter because it's an hybridization attempt of MI28 and KA50.

-coaxial rotor,

-triple barreled turret cannon (pure invention of BI that doesn't exist either on KA50/52 or MI28)

why BI doesn't simply implement the real MI28 instead ? it's better to play a military simulation with realistic equipements that have verifiable and observable characteristics IRL.

if the developers start to take the liberty of implementing fictive stuffs (not even prototypes) it can tend to open the pandora's box for the rest.

Edited by cychou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's better to play a military simulation with realistic equipements that have verifiable and observable characteristics IRL.

Yay, this again...

Does the cannon (looks like a GAU-19 or M197 to me) have verifiable specs? Yes

Do the missiles have verifiable specs? Yes

Do the rockets have verifiable specs? Yes

Will it have a specified fuel capacity? Yes (engine specs and rotor configuration dont matter in the ArmA series)

Will it have a specified top speed? Yes

I really dont get how its so different from anything else. Afterall, the visual model makes jack shit of difference when it comes to the actual performance ingame.

People need to chill the fuck out and stop making such straw-man arguments for why the Mi48 is "the end of all things!!1!!11!!1!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if the developers start to take the liberty of implementing fictive stuffs (not even prototypes) it can tend to open the pandora's box for the rest.

It's a slippery slope and we're taking everyone for the ride! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Iratus, a wind turbine couldn't power a mouse fart BTW, they are the white elephant of todays technology.

But... but... aehm...

Oh well, you're right about this. They just came into my mind because I was thinking about energy sources on the island. At least the Iranis can use those wind turbines to charge their iPads while firing the railcannon :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would actually be the current causing the heat as the coil resistance would be quite low. ;)

Errr, it is resistance that would cause energy loss in the form of heat. And, technically, since the coils are wrapping around the barrel, resistance would be higher in a coil gun than in a rail gun, as resistance increases with the length of the conductor. Of course, since the coils are essentially segments, each individual coil might not be more resistant than a rail gun, but there is no reason to suspect that a coil gun would have inherently less resistance than a rail gun. I would think at least around the same resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they expand the realistic Flight model from ToH on Helicopters with coaxial rotors. They have totally different fligt dynamics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The arguments about the Merkava tank are dumb. Why argue about something projected 20 years in the future? The very symbol of Soviet Communism, the AK-47

kalashnikov-ak-47.jpg

is almost a copy of the German StG 44

mp44-1.jpg?1249472800

So Communists were very content to perfect a weapon designed by Nazis. Thousands of German scientists worked for the armaments industries of the West and East following the end of WWII.

Edited by MissionCreep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacegunconvent.php#id--Kinetic_Kill_Weapons--Railguns Projectrho on railguns. Also has a power calculation for the shell, to give you an Idea of range and damage, as well as power consumption.

The rails suffer from massive abrasion due to the shell´s sabot being in contact with them. The energy flows trough the sabot and pushes it forward trough lorentz force. So the rails get rubbed down with each shot, and they get -very hot- due to inefficiency issues and friction. (I would imagine if the efficiency limit for a perfect railgun is similar to that of a perfect laser, total efficiency would be around 50% or something. That means half of the energy fed into the weapons system would be turned into waste heat.)

Problem is energy, obviously. The Navy´s proposed weapon has an energy on target of 32MJ (Being fed by 64MJ of energy), with a range of 200+ nautical miles. Such ranges aren´t needed for a tank projectile, 5 ish kilometers would suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The arguments about the Merkava tank are dumb. Why argue about something projected 20 years in the future? The very symbol of Soviet Communism, the AK-47

http://images.gizmag.com/hero/kalashnikov-ak-47.jpg

is almost a copy of the German StG 44

http://www.gamer.ru/system/attached_images/images/000/047/368/normal/mp44-1.jpg?1249472800

So Communists were very content to perfect a weapon designed by Nazis. Thousands of German scientists worked for the armaments industries of the West and East following the end of WWII.

The Ak-47 is nowhere near a copy of the MP-44. The only real similarities are they're guns, have detachable box magazines, and are assault rifles with a gas piston. The AK was INSPIRED by the MP-44, but that's like saying the M-16 is a copy of the AK because the AK came first and they use the same idea or that the K-98 is a copy of the Mosin Nagant.

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/772/77607351.jpg

They're about as similar as the K98 and the Mosin are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now