Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How I would make it. Thoughts?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: How I would make it. Thoughts?

    Originally posted by [GCA]Tim270
    Conventional factions are much easier and I would assume DICE would give with them.

    To my understanding there has never really been a straightforward fight between T72's and Chall/abrams so I would wait until they have actually been used against each other than taking the assumption that one is better than the other just on paper.
    Russia is upgrading/upgraded to T-90's anyhow?
    I'm sure there has... I feel like Iraq had a good amount of them before both wars with the US. US and UK armor both did a lot of work in both wars, especially in desert storm.

    Its not even a contest, in a well fought out armor battle an A1 would easily be able to take a good 3-4 T72s. Also, there wouldn't be much of a "close quarters" thing going for tanks, because that rarely ever happens, and it goes against doctrine.

    Armor is good for exploiting flat land, and good terrain, and cities are not what you would consider good terrain.

    Pick up Red Storm Rising, by Tom Clancy and Larry Bond, not only is it a good read, but it really schools you on "how it really is." and not all the BS we see in the movies and video games.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: How I would make it. Thoughts?

      Originally posted by Wizrdwarts
      Yeah, wasn't the BF1942 campaign just regular maps in historical order and with a short story/intro about the battle?



      I meant that I don't want the maps to all be insurgent vs. regular army maps. I want to see conventional army maps as well, T-90s vs. Abrams.
      So what do you call the Venezuelan army?

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: How I would make it. Thoughts?

        Originally posted by Kyle
        I'm sure there has... I feel like Iraq had a good amount of them before both wars with the US. US and UK armor both did a lot of work in both wars, especially in desert storm.

        Its not even a contest, in a well fought out armor battle an A1 would easily be able to take a good 3-4 T72s. Also, there wouldn't be much of a "close quarters" thing going for tanks, because that rarely ever happens, and it goes against doctrine.

        The widespread support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war meant Iraq had military equipment from almost every major dealer of the world's weapons market. This resulted in a lack of standardization in this large heterogeneous force, which additionally suffered from poor training and poor motivation. The majority of Iraqi armoured forces still used old Chinese Type 59s and Type 69s, Soviet-made T-55s from the 1950s and 1960s, and some T-72s from the 1970s in 1991. These machines were not equipped with up-to-date equipment, such as thermal sights or laser rangefinders, and their effectiveness in modern combat was very limited. The Iraqis failed to find an effective countermeasure to the thermal sights and the sabot rounds used by the M1 Abrams, Challenger 1 and the other Coalition tanks. This equipment enabled Coalition tanks to effectively engage and destroy Iraqi tanks from more than three times the distance that Iraqi tanks could engage. The Iraqi tank crews used old, cheap steel penetrators against the advanced Chobham Armour of these US and British tanks, with disastrous results. The Iraqi forces also failed to utilize the advantage that could be gained from using urban warfare — fighting within Kuwait City — which could have inflicted significant casualties on the attacking forces. Urban combat reduces the range at which fighting occurs and can negate some of the technological advantage that well equipped forces enjoy. Iraqis also tried to use Soviet military doctrine, but the implementation failed due to the lack of skill of their commanders and the preventive air strikes of the USAF on communication centers and bunkers.


        /wall of text, but you get the idea, still not really a 'fair' contest to actually compare the vehicles. If they had been up to date with the latest equipment (thermals) and t72 as their main tank with experienced crews it might have been completely different + coalition pretty much had air superiority...

        To put into perspective as well, the Abrams was designed 10 years later than the t-72. A single t-72 today costs $1–2 million - the Abrams costs $6.21 million for a single tank Im not sure if that includes TUSK as well.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: How I would make it. Thoughts?

          Originally posted by [GCA]Tim270

          To put into perspective as well, the Abrams was designed 10 years later than the t-72. A single t-72 today costs $1–2 million - the Abrams costs $6.21 million for a single tank Im not sure if that includes TUSK as well.
          What exactly is TUSK? What are it's advantages?

          If I'm correct there's only the, M1A1, M1A1 TUSK, M1A2, M1A2 TUSK right?

          So TUSK is a mod right?

          What's the difference between the M1A1 and M1A2?

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: How I would make it. Thoughts?

            Tusk is designed for urban fights. Tusk stands for Tank urban survivability kit.
            It has reactive armor, thermal vision etc.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: How I would make it. Thoughts?

              Originally posted by [GCA]Tim270

              The widespread support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war meant Iraq had military equipment from almost every major dealer of the world's weapons market. This resulted in a lack of standardization in this large heterogeneous force, which additionally suffered from poor training and poor motivation. The majority of Iraqi armoured forces still used old Chinese Type 59s and Type 69s, Soviet-made T-55s from the 1950s and 1960s, and some T-72s from the 1970s in 1991. These machines were not equipped with up-to-date equipment, such as thermal sights or laser rangefinders, and their effectiveness in modern combat was very limited. The Iraqis failed to find an effective countermeasure to the thermal sights and the sabot rounds used by the M1 Abrams, Challenger 1 and the other Coalition tanks. This equipment enabled Coalition tanks to effectively engage and destroy Iraqi tanks from more than three times the distance that Iraqi tanks could engage. The Iraqi tank crews used old, cheap steel penetrators against the advanced Chobham Armour of these US and British tanks, with disastrous results. The Iraqi forces also failed to utilize the advantage that could be gained from using urban warfare — fighting within Kuwait City — which could have inflicted significant casualties on the attacking forces. Urban combat reduces the range at which fighting occurs and can negate some of the technological advantage that well equipped forces enjoy. Iraqis also tried to use Soviet military doctrine, but the implementation failed due to the lack of skill of their commanders and the preventive air strikes of the USAF on communication centers and bunkers.


              /wall of text, but you get the idea, still not really a 'fair' contest to actually compare the vehicles. If they had been up to date with the latest equipment (thermals) and t72 as their main tank with experienced crews it might have been completely different + coalition pretty much had air superiority...

              To put into perspective as well, the Abrams was designed 10 years later than the t-72. A single t-72 today costs $1–2 million - the Abrams costs $6.21 million for a single tank Im not sure if that includes TUSK as well.
              Thats what I'm saying... The training, air superiority (which is something that would be obtained in a war with Venezuela due to the obvious superior air force.), and etc. just adds to the point I'm making.

              Probably not a good idea to have a typical Soviet supplied small South American country going up against two huge modern armies. Any war like that would simply be a challenge for UK and American forces to minimize casualties, winning (a conventional engagement) would be something that's almost a given.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: How I would make it. Thoughts?

                Originally posted by Xeq
                Tusk is designed for urban fights. Tusk stands for Tank urban survivability kit.
                It has reactive armor, thermal vision etc.
                That's interesting. What about vehicle add-ons for BF3? You can select one or two add-ons in your class selection screen before you spawn, which you carry into any appropriate vehicle.

                Reactive armour: Higher protection vs RPG and HEAT rounds.
                Point-defense turret: Automated pellet blasts or laser streak from a small cannon mounted on the tank that intercepts incoming aircraft bombs/missiles.
                Thermal vision: Allows you to see the heat signature out-line of nearby infantry or vehicles.
                Fuel tanks: Either increases your vehicles top speed or gives your vehicle a turbo boost meter. Attached onto the rear of the vehicle.
                Fording snorkel: Allows your vehicle/tank to become amphibious. So you can cross shallow rivers and shorelines.
                Dozer Shovel: Attaches to the front of the vehicle. Allows you to drive through objects without sustaining any damage.
                Chain flail: Attaches to the front of the vehicle. Destroys mines without sustaining any damage to your vehicle. Shreds infantry and light vehicles.
                Coaxial weapons turret specialization: Replace the standard .50 cal MG with; anti-aircraft flak cannon, gattling gun, grenade machine gun, TOW launcher, mortar launcher, stinger missile or flame thrower. etc.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: How I would make it. Thoughts?

                  Sounds epic JayZ

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X