FN 2000s for the US military?

[Innomadic 10]

As far as I know the F2000 and the SCAR are made in Belgium. FAMAS is made in France.

Fix'd, although honestly close enough.

F2000 is made by FN Herstal which is Belgian company

France have FAMAS , not F2000 :rolleyes:

Has been rectified, and no need for the sarcasm. An honest mistake.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Innomadic

[Prydain 1]

As I said in my previous post, there is a way for weapons like the F2000 to have a justified place in the game.

Besides these are just early release promo screens, whats to say we don't have M4's? They just wouldn't get the attention like the F2000's and the TAR-21.

Modern Warfare, MW2 and MW3 where/are being advertised with the M4 on the box-art, even though through most of MW2 you don't use a M4. The idea that weapons need to be eye-candy for sales isn't just stupid but provably false. People don't look at the weapons on the box art or previews, they look at the game itself or get it because their friends say its good.

The F2000 doesn't make sense for the US military, let alone look right. Whats wrong with the HK416 or SCAR? Actual weapons that might be in use in the 2020s.

[Innomadic 10]

Modern Warfare, MW2 and MW3 where/are being advertised with the M4 on the box-art, even though through most of MW2 you don't use a M4. The idea that weapons need to be eye-candy for sales isn't just stupid but provably false. People don't look at the weapons on the box art or previews, they look at the game itself or get it because their friends say its good.

The F2000 doesn't make sense for the US military, let alone look right. Whats wrong with the HK416 or SCAR? Actual weapons that might be in use in the 2020s.

Perhaps i should have clarified when i said promo screens. I mean the first batch of screenshots that contained the numerous odd weapons.

However do note that the first weapon seen in MW2 was the ACR, and then the FAMAS. The M4 didn't come around until they showed off the Favela area. I never said its a sales pitch, however people will become interested in the game. "US Special Forces using F2000's? What is this game?" etc. Its a talking point.

It doesn't make sense for the US military to be completely cut off from allied supplies and rely on weapons available at the time either, yet thats the predicament Miller is in and if that means that currently all screens are showing US Special Forces, which as stated are behind enemy lines, using European weapons as thats all they have available to them (excluding the M14, i can't explain that) then i dont see the issue with equipping US Special Forces with F2000's for the time being.

We haven't seen enough and don't know enough to draw any conclusions as to the US Militarys main infantry rifle, and thus this F2000 issue should not be of any importance, and it buggers me brainless to understand why it is.

[icebreakr 3159]

Mind that one arrow in "teaser shots" showed invasion on Europe and the arrow stopped on Slovenia (near Italy and Austria). Mind that Slovenia uses FN F2000 as their assault rifle ;) we use special version F2000S - here's a pic of it. But I guess we just have to wait for new promo shots by BIS. They *do* read their forum, so no worries ;)

[Splintert 10]

I'd like to see more weapons, no matter realistic or not. More weapons = better.

M14 is the best darn rifle in ARMA II OA, no questions about it (in my opinion). The M14 was also a weapon used in early Vietnam... not particularly realistic.

[rangerpl 13]

The game will probably feature M4/M16-pattern rifles anyway. I doubt BIS would just toss those out.

As for the RAH-66, the Comanche was cancelled due to cost overruns as well as the fact that a stealth recon helicopter was unnecessary (since most of America's enemies use RPGs and hide in caves). The game is set during WWIII, so it's not completely unrealistic that the DoD might dust off the RAH-66 project.

[Flogger23m 2]

I'd like to see more weapons, no matter realistic or not. More weapons = better.

M14 is the best darn rifle in ARMA II OA, no questions about it (in my opinion). The M14 was also a weapon used in early Vietnam... not particularly realistic.

Better done weapons over many but poorly done (ArmA 2 OA) any day. IMO.

The M14 was a realistic choice for ArmA 2, considering that the US military still uses it... though it is being phased out by both the M110 and MK17/MK20.

[rye1 21]

About time we saw the XM2010 for a near future experience. Though it would be a new calibre to ballistically model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM2010

FN2000 isn't a problem for me, will be nice to try it out.

[Brute Force 10]

About time we saw the XM2010 for a near future experience. Though it would be a new calibre to ballistically model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM2010

FN2000 isn't a problem for me, will be nice to try it out.

For the life of me, I can't understand why they went the .300 over the .338 round. The .338 is superior in nearly every way over the .300 for a sniper. The XM2010 is basically a modernized Remington 700, underlying action is still the same with just new furniture.

Though I will say, any advancement over the old .308 is better.

[Militant1006 11]

Yeah, but there could be many reasons they chose the XM2010, besides the wounding capabilities that is, I have never fired a sniper rifle in my life, but I think it could be:

- Ammunition costs

- Ammunition weight

- Recoil of weapon

Also, an interesting thing to see in Arma 3 would be the 6.8 Remington round, there are quite a few guns that have the potential to use it now, REC7 and XCR are the two most likely, I especially like the XCR :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_Armament_XCR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REC7

[Brute Force 10]

Yeah, but there could be many reasons they chose the XM2010, besides the wounding capabilities that is, I have never fired a sniper rifle in my life, but I think it could be:

- Ammunition costs

- Ammunition weight

- Recoil of weapon

Also, an interesting thing to see in Arma 3 would be the 6.8 Remington round, there are quite a few guns that have the potential to use it now, REC7 and XCR are the two most likely, I especially like the XCR :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_Armament_XCR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REC7

As you can see, the ammunition size is roughly the same (so is the weight ~). Where they mainly differ is ballistics. I have a feeling that they chose the .300 over the .338 mainly since the .300 is a homegrown vs. the .338 Lapua.

[Innomadic 10]

The game will probably feature M4/M16-pattern rifles anyway. I doubt BIS would just toss those out.

As for the RAH-66, the Comanche was cancelled due to cost overruns as well as the fact that a stealth recon helicopter was unnecessary (since most of America's enemies use RPGs and hide in caves). The game is set during WWIII, so it's not completely unrealistic that the DoD might dust off the RAH-66 project.

Well we know thats a complete lie considering the recent Stealth S-70 modifications. It was stated at the end of the Comanche program that tech learned from that program would most likely filter down into existing Helos.

Also it wouldn't be as simple as just "dusting it off". At the end of the program they most likely destroyed all the tooling required to make it, meaning costs would be even greater again for a full production aircraft. I believe that since its in A3 someone in US DoD decided that keeping the Comanche was a good thing. Just another offshoot in a strangereal world.

But who cares! We get to fly it!

I'd like to see more weapons, no matter realistic or not. More weapons = better.

M14 is the best darn rifle in ARMA II OA, no questions about it (in my opinion). The M14 was also a weapon used in early Vietnam... not particularly realistic.

Eh with my poor framerate the heavy recoil ain't fun for me, i prefer double tapping with a 5.56.

As you can see, the ammunition size is roughly the same (so is the weight ~). Where they mainly differ is ballistics. I have a feeling that they chose the .300 over the .338 mainly since the .300 is a homegrown vs. the .338 Lapua.

It was also proved that with the transfer from a 7.62 to a 5.56, they were using more ammo because the 5.56 was weak, and therefore no real change in ammo weight...or something like that, twas an old article.

[therev709 10]

I admit I haven't read this entire thread, but let me bring this up.

I don't think its the FN2000, look at the grip, its more P90ish.

Magpul has designed a concept PDW that is a bullpup using STANAG mags and chambered in 5.56 with the P90 style grip.

[Brute Force 10]

Well we know thats a complete lie considering the recent Stealth S-70 modifications. It was stated at the end of the Comanche program that tech learned from that program would most likely filter down into existing Helos.

Also it wouldn't be as simple as just "dusting it off". At the end of the program they most likely destroyed all the tooling required to make it, meaning costs would be even greater again for a full production aircraft. I believe that since its in A3 someone in US DoD decided that keeping the Comanche was a good thing. Just another offshoot in a strangereal world.

But who cares! We get to fly it!

Well actually it was pretty much a heavily modified S-92 as far as we know. S-70 just doesn't fit the profile in the pictures.

It was also proved that with the transfer from a 7.62 to a 5.56, they were using more ammo because the 5.56 was weak, and therefore no real change in ammo weight...or something like that, twas an old article.

Having fired tens of thousands of 5.56, I would call it anything but "weak" ;) . Google the M855A1 and see the pen. power of it. However, the range does leave something to be desired.

[rye1 21]

I wouldn't like to get shot, so I wouldn't call it "weak". But I'd say it has had a bit of negative feedback, I'm glad they're enhancing it's name with the introduction of the MK262 and Black Hills R2LP.

[roberthammer 582]

I admit I haven't read this entire thread, but let me bring this up.

I don't think its the FN2000, look at the grip, its more P90ish.

Magpul has designed a concept PDW that is a bullpup using STANAG mags and chambered in 5.56 with the P90 style grip.

Just look this http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1930919&postcount=32

[Militant1006 11]

yeah, defiently F2000 S, I was wondering this time if the damage will be hitpoint based or not, and if it is still I wonder if the ammunition will get the "damage" factor or if the weapon will.

[Innomadic 10]

Well actually it was pretty much a heavily modified S-92 as far as we know. S-70 just doesn't fit the profile in the pictures.

Having fired tens of thousands of 5.56, I would call it anything but "weak" ;) . Google the M855A1 and see the pen. power of it. However, the range does leave something to be desired.

Well the next time you hear about the 160th SOAR using anything else other than BlackHawks for that role be sure to let us know.

And i'm just saying what i've read. I've never claimed to have any real experience, it was just a US Army report i read regarding the switch from 7.62 to 5.56 and the advantages and disadvantages of both.

[-GR-Operative 10]

5.56x45mm NATO and 7.62x51mm NATO, both, have the power needed to kill in one shot, be it to the head or torax/abdomen. The difference is that 7.62x51mm NATO is twice the weight of 5.56x45mm NATO. The 556 is capable of penetrating up to half meter of soft tissue (read "people" here) and can reach really high velocities, causing the round to fragment. The 762 reach far lower velocities due to the weight of the projectile and suffers from more accentuate bullet drop, but it delivers way more energy than the 556 (2x to 3x).

The 556 and the 762 are different cartridges to different situations.

[Kristian 47]

I dont give two cents thats its not realistic. Looks bloody epic. I approve of this. Give us videos @ E3 and I'm happy

[rye1 21]

Operative;1937885']5.56x45mm NATO and 7.62x51mm NATO' date=' both, have the power needed to kill in one shot, be it to the head or torax/abdomen. The difference is that 7.62x51mm NATO is twice the weight of 5.56x45mm NATO. The 556 is capable of penetrating up to half meter of soft tissue (read "people" here) and can reach really high velocities, causing the round to fragment. The 762 reach far lower velocities due to the weight of the projectile and suffers from more accentuate bullet drop, but it delivers way more energy than the 556 (2x to 3x).

The 556 and the 762 are different cartridges to different situations.[/quote']

Shot placement is where it is at for one shot kills, I agree. The wounding capacity of soft tissue is both is very different depending on ammunition, velocity (distance), angle of attack (AOA), and what anatomic structures the projectile hits.

The only one shot kill scenarios I have heard of have been caused by direct trauma to the central nervous system (brain, spinal cord), the aorta or heart, and if the bullet hits vitals - both organs and arteries - or multiple vital organs or arteries and the suspects body cannot handle that. This may be down to psychological factors, physical factors or just pure luck but I have to say that the human body is amazing - expect the worst.

I know for pistol calibres (9mm, .45 mainly tested) penetration must have at least 12 to 18 inches in soft tissue (e.g. pig, human) or ballistic geletan (less resistance than real tissue but very similar) tests to reach vital organs and major arteries from all of the angles, of course this depends on where it hits and what it does while in soft tissue - it might not hit any but that would be sheer luck. Yes, I'm not saying you have to be obese to be severely injured from being shot - that is just the way they test it to have a minimal amount of penetration at that standard.

If the round goes through construction, vehicular, anatomic (bone) or clothing material then it will perform differently - most times it performs better.

You are looking to do maximum damage on the way to vitals, to then shut down the vitals, distrupt soft tissue, cause bleeding, create shock and lower blood pressure - that will stop the target. As soon as the bullet hits, if it follows these steps it will basically begin to shut down the human body and the person will drop; either there and then or over a very short period of time.

Depending on ammunition and engagement range, the 5.56 tends to underperform - especially in extreme climates - America doesn't produce the highest standards of ammunition. It tends to go through-and-through and fragment minimally if at all. It's good to push out the engagement range because of this and then it acts brilliantly - with the added bonus of new rounds like the MK262, you can cause some serious damage, it tumbles reliably on soft tissue and penetrates perfectly.

7.62x51mm NATO follows a trend, or at least tends to, of tumbling around 12 inches into the body. This is great if you come off at an awkward angle, say from say the thigh into the thoracic cavity then it will do a lot of damage or if you penetrate an object (material or bone) and then hit soft tissue. But other than that it is through-and-through, the weight means it takes a lot of soft tissue with it and it's permanent cavity is larger in comparison.

Hit the vitals with this thing and you're going to cause one heck of a mess.

Wounding is also not only about what the projectile does there and then but what the medic or surgeons can do after that - if it complicates that process and makes it harder to treat then there is a bigger chance the patient will die.

Finally, because the modern military have to account for accuracy, reliability and all kinds of factors for projectiles and weaponary then you do not always meet the standard you would want. I've got to say, expect the suspect to keep taking hits, once they are down make sure they are dead and then analyse what happened for future reference - this method tends to go best.

Sorry to go so far off topic but the basis is, BIS have to account for differentiating simple damage values within the engine like soft tissue compared to material. It goes into a different ballgame and creates a better system. When using ACE do it they have independant damage values for this.

They also have to fix the fact that within the current "weapons" cause the "damage" not ammunition, this is totally untrue! Ammunition causes the damage. The weapon accounts for internal and some amount of external factors, which in turn factors for some of the terminal effects but not all. So when you add 'API' or 'MK211' and other rounds into the game, this cannot be replicated to the standard it should be.

Maybe the penetration formula needs work for accounting for armour-piercing rounds etc - some kind of multiplyer.

---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 PM ----------

I'd have to also say that the majority of the time the AI are combat effective no matter if they have been hit or not. The only way we currently solve this is by decreasing their aim, accuracy, causing them to go prone and adding more 'shake' effects.

Though this cannot be accounted for (unless animations are vastly improved and other factors are improved) then we can only currently modify the amount needed to "kill" an opponent by increasing it to account for these effects (for all calibres). You cannot get it 100% perfect but you can improve upon.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Rye
Made a kafuddle!