Project Reality Forums

Sweet, so what they getting?

Oh go on... do tell

Tacticool.

Expendable Grunt wrote:ArmA 2 and OPFP 2 are coming out around the same time.

Which will we choose?

I think the BTR-80 is my fav...

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino;838760']

WTF ? IS that

Seems Rhino got again some new Tanks out for PR

This is what we need
T55 "Goldeneye Tank"

Specifications

Crew: 3
Weight: 40.5 tonnes
Length 6.2 m (19'16"")
Height 2.32 m (7'7")
Width 3.60 m (11'9")
Engine Power: 580 hp

Armament:
Main Gun: 100-mm gun
Machinegunsx2 7.62 machine gun

This Russian T55 Main Battle Tank was the actual one used in the James Bond movie Goldeneye with Piers Brosnan as pictured above. It had several modifications made for the movie which included changing the original steel tracks to Chieftain tracks with rubber pads so it could be driven on the road, reactive armour was added to make the vehicle look like a modern day Tank and a small hatch was cut out at the front and covered with a Perspex screen so that the driver controlling the vehicle could be concealed while Piers Brosnan was in full view.

The T-55 was introduced in 1958 an improved version of the T-54 series. Production continued in the Soviet Union through to 1981 and large numbers are still in service. In the 1980s the T-54/55 were replaced by the T-62,T-64,T-72, and T-80 as the Soviet primary main battle Tank. The T55 has a 12.7mm Dshk anti aircraft gun and 100 mm gun. Its top speed is about 44 kph, which for 40 tons is quite impressive. Our vehicle has been lovingly restored back to its former glory and makes an excellent fully operation Russian /Eastern European Tank for TV or film work. The vehicle has Mock up reactive armour which can be removed if required. In line with Health and Safety and film set compliance this vehicle has rubber pad tracks on the vehicle making it suitable for on and off road filming making it ideal for Filming on TV/Movie Sets. This vehicle has been used in the following: Goldeneye, Die Another Day, Richard the third, Red Dwarf, Extras.

DeadSmile wrote:WTF ? IS that

Photoshop skills

No no no dont replace BTR90! MAybe new model but jeez.. Why M113?

Wow wow! I agree with replace the BTR-90 with the BTR-80 because they look alike and stay true to the ``APC`` type of vehicle. The M113 looks too weak to fight US/PLA/UK APCs and would be too much unbalanced against them. I suggest you implement the M113 as a support role Vehicle altough I think the Vodnik would already fill that role perfectly (far more efficient, doesn't use tracks, faster, can support AA, 14mm cannon and transport troops)... I think another good candidate is the BMP-2, but i'm ain't no military specialist so I don't know if it's exported by Russia or not.

Really, I don't want the M113 to replace the BTR series, it brings the *tracked death coffin* trauma too much! lol
Go BTR-80, you can do it!

Everyone needs to stop thinking in absolutes. What's to say we won't have the M113 on a certain map that seems fit for it? And something else to replace the role of the BTR-90 on other maps?

The BTR-90 should be replaced because IRL they are not used by middle eastern countries. They could use M113, YW 531(Type 63),MT-LB , BRDM-2, BMP-1/2/3, BTR-50/60/70/80. These vehicles are used by Iran/Iraq/Pakistan.

BECAUSE THE M113 SUCKS ***!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do not use the M113 to replace even a horse and buggy. It is slow, under powered, and has weak armor.

If however you INSIST on adding it; make it a static. Make it a static that has been abandoned, and burning because it SUCKS!!!

Rico11b wrote:BECAUSE THE M113 SUCKS ***!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do not use the M113 to replace even a horse and buggy. It is slow, under powered, and has weak armor.

If however you INSIST on adding it; make it a static. Make it a static that has been abandoned, and burning because it SUCKS!!!

LMAO

AREM117 wrote:The BTR-90 should be replaced because IRL they are not used by middle eastern countries. They could use M113, YW 531(Type 63),MT-LB , BRDM-2, BMP-1/2/3, BTR-50/60/70/80. These vehicles are used by Iran/Iraq/Pakistan.

I like your suggestions, all of them

Rico11b wrote:BECAUSE THE M113 SUCKS ***!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do not use the M113 to replace even a horse and buggy. It is slow, under powered, and has weak armor.

If however you INSIST on adding it; make it a static. Make it a static that has been abandoned, and burning because it SUCKS!!!

I LOLed.

A lot.

Rico11b wrote:BECAUSE THE M113 SUCKS ***!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do not use the M113 to replace even a horse and buggy. It is slow, under powered, and has weak armor.

If however you INSIST on adding it; make it a static. Make it a static that has been abandoned, and burning because it SUCKS!!!

A comment of epic proportions.


I think this would be a good addition. With the Vodnik (hopefully) getting a 14.5mm cannon, I think a weaker "heavy" transport would be decent compensation. The M113's default armor is up to 38mm thick, but is made of aluminum.


I also would LOVE it if it required only a single crewmen kit in order to operate. I think the .50 gunner can be any kit, seeing as it is a normal mounted gun, not remote operated like the Stryker. With only one crewmen per squad for driving, it would make for very successful mechanized infantry squads (4 regular kits : 2 crewmen vs 5 regular kits : 1 crewmen).

I think we need this

Rico's got a grudge!! EPic LOLs there!! Anyhow, i say we mainly go with a BRT-80 for the looks and to keep Rico's from not selfexploding on us. But on large tank focused maps we go with Rhino's tacticool 40K suggestion.

if yous read this site carefully the mecs have bought this from us the jordanions and the United Arab Emirates
ACV-S Tracked Armoured Combat Vehicle (Stretched) - Army Technology

here are the varrietys turkey can produce on customer request