PDA

View Full Version : The New M1 Abrams


Drunkenup
2010-02-28, 19:55
I've had a relatively long experience in 0.9 with the new M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams tanks. Both in Insurgency mode and on AAS versus Enemy tanks. I do have many questions and issues to address and ask.

-So I'll start here, With asking why the TUSK package isn't installed on all US Army M1A2 Tanks, As I've seen on Silent Eagle, yet they have the TUSK package on Karbala.
-The A2, TUSK package hasn't been added to every aspect of the tank. The M1A2 is still missing the CITV, and the Loader's gun shield does not reside on the M1A2. And the 7.62mm gun next to the .50 Caliber MG is not there.
-The Turret traverses too low on the Y-Axis, as when you turn the turret to the rear of the Tank, the Barrel protrudes into the Engine.

-Oh, and REALLY big Problem. And I have seen this issue with the Merkeva and the Abrams. If the tank is subject to stress or pressure on the top of the turret, sides, etc, then what I believe is the Col. Mesh will make the vehicle explode. I saw this happen while trying to destroy a civilian car by pushing it up against a wall in Gaza Beach, and while trying to drive up a steep hill on Karbala, when a humvee suddenly plopped on top of us and had us Teamkilled. Really need to fix the Col. Mesh.

Overall, the tank does seem like its real with its updated sounds and in some aspect, looks. Good job, but I would really love to see some visual improvements made to it in future builds.

dtacs
2010-02-28, 20:07
-So I'll start here, With asking why the TUSK package isn't installed on all US Army M1A2 Tanks, As I've seen on Silent Eagle, yet they have the TUSK package on Karbala.
That is a good question, and we are yet to see some of the upgrades of the TUSK other than the armor tiles.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_M1A2_TUSK_lg.jpg

To be honest a remotely-operated .50 on the Abrams would simply pull more people off the ground, essentially making a commander's position in the tank, as it would have zoom.
-The A2, TUSK package hasn't been added to every aspect of the tank. The M1A2 is still missing the CITV, and the Loader's gun shield does not reside on the M1A2. And the 7.62mm gun next to the .50 Caliber MG is not there.

The M1A2 does have the CITV. The secondary drivers view (zoom one) is based out of the CITV, and for some reason, it is the same on the M1A1 (a tad silly as it is a CITV made out of thin air...)

-The Turret traverses too low on the Y-Axis, as when you turn the turret to the rear of the Tank, the Barrel protrudes into the Engine.
I don't think that can be coded, for the barrel to stop and start moving up when it begins to hit the rear engine compartment. The only way I can think of to stop it happening is to limit the barrel going below the X axis, which is quite unrealistic as AFAIK it can aim down slightly.

J.F.Leusch69
2010-02-28, 20:08
-the TUSK kit is not standart issued on all M1A2 in the US Army
-the current "TUSK" kit only contains the reactive armor
-the USMC only uses M1A1 (w/ TUSK)
-the barrel sticking into the mainbody is a engine limitation
-COLs could be better

USMCMIDN
2010-03-29, 01:44
J.F.Leusch69;1281746']-the TUSK kit is not standart issued on all M1A2 in the US Army
-the current "TUSK" kit only contains the reactive armor
-the USMC only uses M1A1 (w/ TUSK)
-the barrel sticking into the mainbody is a engine limitation
-COLs could be better

I have asked many USMC armor guys and to their knowledge and mine we did not get the TUSK so the USMC does not use TUSK. Not needed for our missions.

Dev1200
2010-03-29, 04:00
Remote .50 would be doom. So yes please ;3