Deltas and rangers released!

[Shashman 0]

Ouch!

[dm 9]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Feb. 20 2003,17:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hi BAS folks, I`ve just seen your new beta weapon screenies! They look again totally great!  

When they are finally released, will they add directly to our current rangers and replace the old weapons? And how will we have to install your future addons? Will they be update-like, or will it be best to delete the old versions and install the new ones?<span id='postcolor'>

Those weapons are part of a completely seperate pack, and will be used by the contents of that pack.

Future addons will be in seperate pbos, all of which will be clearly marked as to what purpose they serve. i.e. the Deltas and Rangers pbo's were called BAS_DeRaW and BAS_DeRaD

future addons will be named in a similar fashion.

As for updates, the pbo's will keep the same filename, but the zips and readme's will be updated. i.e. the current Delta/Ranger download pack (the zip/rar/exe) is called BAS_DeltaRangers_v1_00, future versions will be called BAS_DeltaRangers_v1_10 1_2 and so on... The best way to keep up with the versions is to check the site. The version number will be at the top of each addon's section, and you can cross reference that to your zip/rar/exe name

[blackdog~ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (~Too Tall~ @ Feb. 20 2003,12:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DeadMeatXM2 @ Feb. 20 2003,127)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Argus... don't get us wrong, but we have put weeks and weeks of research into this addon.

Also, you are quoteing "In Somalia" a lot. Well that was 10 years ago... and a lot can change in 10 years... (btw, if you hadn't allready guessed, the BAS Deltas/Rangers are set in the modern time-period i.e. 2003...)

You guys have to let the BHD era go... these addons are not set in that timeperiod, and are therefore very different units to those that saw action in 1993<span id='postcolor'>

u BAS guys are good. see if i was u, i woulda told this guy to fuck off 3 posts ago    lol u guys got good PR skills

great addon look forward to re-releases as well as new ones<span id='postcolor'>

This sounds familiar...

[Placebo 29]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (~Too Tall~ @ Feb. 20 2003,19:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">u BAS guys are good. see if i was u, i woulda told this guy to fuck off 3 posts ago    <span id='postcolor'>

If they'd done that they would have been post restricted which wouldn't do anyone any good

[FallenPaladin 0]

I just found another bug in MP, in the hostage rescue mission, which takes place in Petrovice. There`s a guy inside the elevator below sniper position 1. He always killed us through the closed door, but we weren`t able to do the same. Maybe it would be better to remove that guy.

Another thing in the MP mission, where you have to take the airport. A lot of the AI is not disembarking from the choppers, if you let AI enabled. Even if you command them to disembark, they don`t do. Other AI soldiers park their choppers in the water and so.  

In addition it would be better if there were pure Delta and Ranger teams, not mixed teams like some in this mission.

A few other suggestions:

On night insertion it would be better if the chopper would turn off the lights when getting near to the insertion zone.

And the hummers in the SP Rescue Ranger mission should, like I mentioned before, better stop before they get shot to pieces by the T80s

[FallenPaladin 0]

Something that happened to me, when I was just trying to get AT to disable the BMP, it`s one of the more funny clipping mistakes:

Para Bondage

[PFC_Mike 2]

I have a suggestion about weapons. IRL, I think that most Special Forces stick with their weapons. For example, someone with an M4 propbably isn't going to pick up an AK. So, becuase most units will be using their weapon, perhaps it would be possible to make new anims that more accurately represent use of a foregrip or pistols?

Just a suggestion.

[Bosniarat 0]

Well thats True and Kinda untrue PFC. The Special Forces tend to try to use Area or Country Specific Weapons, such as AK-47s, RPK-47s and Other area Specific weapons, to both confuse the Enemy (ie the thought that there is Fratracide going on) because their own weapons are being shot back at them. But most of the time Special Forces or others will use The M-4 SOPMOD or other US weapons because of familiarity.

HOOOAAH!

[NavyEEL 0]

Hooah!

[BAS-Damocles 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PFC_Mike Feb. 19 2003,04:32 http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/68-3388.asp

this is by 1 SG Rudy Romero. scroll down to the part starting off "equipment wise"...

I don't dispute the fact that there ARE many CQB situations that US forces will have to face, it's just that you still have to fight at distance. That's all I was saying.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Miles Teg Feb. 19 2003,066

The term "shoulder fired" when used with a machine gun or rifle implies that it's fired from a standing or kneeling unsupported position. If the FM manuals say otherwise then that's cool, but unless you're pretty strong, you normally don't fire a medium machine gun like a rifle in the standing or kneeling position. Otherwise, in the prone position, on a tripod, or in a trench yes the butt of the weapon touches your shoulder.

Also it should be noted that at least when I was in the Army they did teach hip firing techniques with the M60 at least. I'm sure they probably teach that for the heavier M240 simply because it's long and I imagine even more cumbersome then the M60 to fire like a rifle while assaulting. Even the smaller M249 SAW is a little cumbersome although it's light enough to be fired like a rifle...just not very comfortable doing so.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">.argus. Feb. 19 2003,174

The M855 has a straighter ballistic arch than the M80. The M855 is also able to penetrate the standard PASGT helmet out to 1100 meters, which is not only more than you will ever need, but also better than the penetration performance of the M80.

Um, I think you are talking about the M80 here, as the M855 WILL fragment when it hits human flesh at velocities above 3500fps. The M80 on the other hand WILL pass straight through. Unless the target is overweight, then the bullet may tumble once before it exits.

You might have heard about CAR-15s? With 10 inch barrels? You know, those barrels that reduce the effective range down to 50 meters, at best? AFAIK the Rangers that were using M16A2s with 20" barrels didn't have any problems taking down charging children and women.(at least not more problems than they would have had if they were using 7.62mm weapons, people don't drop instantly when shot by a 7.62mm weapon in the chest, heart included, upper spine on the other hand...) Most of the complaints regarding the m855s performance is related to the weapon it is being fired from.

I assume you are joking? (you are, right?)

On the issue of "scopes", it seems like some of you have some problems defining things:

From dictionary:

Sounds like a C79 to me. And 4x is perfectly useable as a scope on a sharpshooter rifle, just look at the ZF4.

My original ignored point was that it felt odd that the SPW(which is what is says it is: SPECIAL purpose weapon), has a scope, while the weapons that could really take use of the scope does not. By the way, the SPW have even more felt recoil than the M249 SAW. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">as Damocles correctly stated, I DON'T work with firearms for a living. I've never even fired a gun in my life, BB guns and airguns included.

So correct me if I'm wrong everybody but isn't it possible to...shoot...the...target..more...than...once? You ever hear of a double-tap? Anyway, I thought that 5.56mm NATO ammunition had a tendency to fragment after entry? I ought to go grab my copy of BHD (the book, not the movie...duh) and look it up, but I'm going to take a chance and say that the rangers and deltas were using armor-piercing rounds, which I would expect aren't going to kill ppl w/o vests as easily. As was stated before, there are many more ways to kill people at a distance than before, so I can understand a shift to smaller weapons.

Like I said, if I'm wrong, correct me.

Two final comments: which unit has the M249 SAW, NOT THE SPW

and another, which is crazier, a $900 .50 cal revolver with insane recoil, or people who think that criminals, especially poor urban criminals, will consider it a weapon of choice?<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">.argus. Feb. 20 2003,17:52

So basically, he cannot be wrong? If I am wrong then he can just point out my errors.

You can double tap but it won't do you much good at long range..

AFAIK, the Deltas and Rangers in Somalia were using "the armys new green tipped armor-piercing rounds". The M855 is the "armor piercing round", it is true that the M855 is more effective than the M193 when it comes to shooting through hard things, but basically the M855 is only a normal FMJ round with a steel penetrator. It only fragments a percentage or two less than the M193. The only other 5.56x45mm armor piercing round in the US inventory is the M995, but that is black tipped and not available at the time.<span id='postcolor'>

Let me answer these in the order in which they were received.

@PFC_Mike

I read the link you posted, and as I suspected he was referring to targets far beyond the engagement range of ANY M16. The M16A2/M4 carbine firing M855 Ball (SS109) has a maximum effective range of 550 meters for a point target, and 880 meters for an area target. The ranges and engagements he was referring to were at indirect fire engagement ranges. (Hence the talk about mortars and air strikes) This is typical of desert type terrain with sparse vegetation.

As to your comment about still having to fight at distance, if you will research, you will find that historically beginning with the use of bow and arrows, continuing through the use of muskets, and up to and including the use of modern smokeless powder firearms you will learn that engagement distances has actually become dramatically shorter, and continue to do so.

This is why the US Army, and armies all over the world are devoting lots of time, money, and research to Close Quarters Battle, and the tools, equipment and technology that will allow success in this environment.

@Miles teg

The term “shoulder fired†does not at all imply that the weapon in question must be fire from the standing or kneeling unsupported position, but rather that the weapon is fired from the shoulder. This can be in the prone position (using the attached bipod), using a tripod from a crew served weapons position, or using natural elements such as a log, or a low wall to brace the weapon. I never said firing from the standing position, which has no bearing on whether a weapon is considered shoulder fired. Dragon missiles are shoulder fired, and they can only be fired one way. AT4s are shoulder fired, and they can be fired standing, kneeling, sitting, and prone. (All unsupported)

While not making light of your service time and experience, I can tell you as a professional Non Commissioned Officer of 10 Ë years (And still active), not only have I never seen any hip shooting, or training of such with either the M60, or the M240B, I can tell you that this practice is frowned on. Not only is the firing uncontrolled and ineffective, there is a strong likelihood of wounding and killing friendly troops during assaults with the unpredictable sweep of the muzzle. I have seen NCOs lose their careers over less.

FYI if you do a little research you will also find that until the advent of the M249 SAW, the M60 was considered a “light†machine gun, not a medium machine gun. In Ranger squads SAW gunners are referred to as “Automatic Riflemenâ€

@ .argus.

With the first statement reference M855 vs. M80 (which is 7.62mm not 5.56mm) was there a point in there somewhere you were trying to make?? My statement was involving the kinetic energy and retained velocity of a lightweight projectile (the 62 grain M855) Vs the kinetic energy and retained velocity of a heavier projectile with a better ballistic coefficient (a 175 grain .308 caliber projectile such as M118LR) My information is supported by physics and science and countless hours of collected data.

As to the claim that M855 can penetrate a PASGT helmet at 1100 meters, I’d love to see the data. Additionally, since that is well beyond the maximum effective range of M855, again I fail to see the point behind that statement. If you can hit a target the size of a PASGT at 1100 meters with M855, then you need to try out for the US Army Service Rifle Team. I can give you the Coach, and the NCOICs phone number and email address. Send pictures.

In your OWN statement you claim that M855 will fragment when it hits human tissue at velocities above 3500 FPS. Considering that M855 has a muzzle velocity of 3300 FPS at the muzzle and about 2985 FPS at 25 meters… Well what was your point again? (Values as measured thousands of times at the USAMU Ammunition Test Facility, Parks Range, Fort Benning Georgia, US Army Infantry Center and School. Measured by Oehler Cronograph systems, and SUIS ASCOR electronic target systems, providing muzzle, in flight, and downrange data collection.)

Oh and bones, not fat are what disturbs the stabilization of a projectile and causes tumbling. An overweight person would actually be more likely to survive a gunshot would as fat cells, and the human body in general are largely water, and water absorbs and redistributes energy extremely efficiently.

CAR-15s where also using M193 (55 grain, copper jacketed lead, no steel penetrator) Or 9mm Parabelum, Rangers didn’t have them, and Delta were using XM177s, with Optical Sights and spitzer bullets, not M855. The Rangers had lots of problems with killing and incapacitating targets that were all on a narcotic, further reducing the effectiveness of the 62 grain steel penetrator.

As to the question of whether or not I may be joking, absolutely not, you should do some more research. Just following the links regarding M855 Ball you’ll discover all manner of information on calibers being evaluated to replace the 5.56mm because of its poor performance.

The M249 Was intended to replace the M60 as the machine gun in Infantry Platoons. This was immediately reworked immediately after fielding, due to the lack of firepower provided by the 5.56mm, even when fired fully automatic.

The question of scopes etc, and dictionary definitions. The definition of which we are speaking, is one as is applied to military applications. That said, a “scope†and an “optical sight†are quite different animals. An aimpoint is a reflex optical sighting device, and not a scope. It provides no magnification, and the “lense†serves only as the surface on which to display to “death dotâ€

@PFC_Mike

Yes soldiers can and do often shoot targets more then once during engagements. However double tapping is illegal. The laws of land warfare, and the Geneva convention preclude this from being legal. Double tapping, is not shooting a target multiple times, it is walking up to an already down target and shooting them again. Hence double tapping.

@.argus.

Certainly I can be wrong, however I am sharing facts that I base on actual documentation and experience. I am confident that anyone actually taking the time to RESEARCH, rather then spouting off, will find lots of the info Im referring to.

Double Tap at long range? Hmmm

The Rangers were in fact using M855 Ball (Green Tip) and the Deltas were not. At least not until they were forced to consolidate ammunition with the Rangers as the operation and firefights wore on into hours past the operations conclusion time.

Armor piercing round?? I believe I referred to the M855 as having and being a “steel penetrator†which it in fact is.

[BAS-Damocles 0]

Let me know if there is anything or anyone I missed. I dont want to leave anyone out, that would be rude.

I can talk about this subject in as little or as much detail as you all would like, since it is after all how I make my living, but if people are going to get all indignant and argumentative, please email me, and we can continue there.

[SGTKOPP 0]

It is only considered double tapping if your pass the enemy and then come back and shoot again.  While moving through an objective you can shoot at enemies that are on th eground and probaly wounded.  Once you reach the LOA  Limited of Advance  and then come back through the obj looking for EPWs and to destroy equipment you cannot shoot the enemy that are wounded.  This is all under the LAWS OF WAR

BAS-Damocles is right  before making comments that you know nothing about reserch it then talk  if you know doctrine then you will never be wrong  thx

[OxPecker 0]

Not to be argumentative but this is the way I've always understood the term double tap -

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Double-tap: (n.) A succession to two-shots fired rapidly from a semiautomatic pistol, rifle or shotgun, or a revolver. Also, as a verb, to describe the act of firing a double-tap. <span id='postcolor'>

Source - A GLOSSARY OF FIREARMS TERMINOLOGY v1.6.1

[BAS-Damocles 0]

Well your civilian glossary of terms is great, and I'll save the link, but there is a difference between military lingo, Slangs and terms, and civilian lingo.

Double Tap as it is applied to soldiers when used in the context as described, means returning to a target that was already engaged, or as SGTKopp stated, returning back to the objective area and pumping rounds into already downed targets.

This practice is illegal whether or not the target is dead or alive. If the target is in fact already dead, then further crimes are commited by shooting the bodies. Mutilation for one.

[OxPecker 0]

Civilian? LOL, yes, "us" civvies go around popping two shots into people all the time.

AFAIK it is a widespread spec-ops and paramilitary term, used by (among others) SWAT, CIA, etc.

I'm not trying to insult you, and I know you are a specialist, but has it ever occurred to you that you may not be right in assuming your definition is the correct one?

It is entirely possible both definitions are correct.

Anyway, here is a less "civilian" source -

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Special Operations

 

Special operations forces typically operate in a highly volatile political environment. They must often minimize the use of force if they intend to complete the mission without alienating international as well as domestic political players. Such alienation would make future missions much more difficult.

 

Hostage Barricade Situation. One counterterrorism scenario that must be resolved with a maximum degree of control is the hostage barricade situation. The ideal nonlethal weapon for a hostage barricade situation would be one that instantaneously and selectively disables the hostage takers. Unfortunately, any feasible weapon would probably disable the hostages as well. Therefore, any disabling effect should be controllable so that the hostages could cooperate in their rescue. At the very least, if the weapon is indiscriminate, the effect must not permanently injure the hostages. The use of lasers to temporarily blind personnel could cause permanent blind spots depending on range and weapon intensity. In the final analysis, however, any nonlethal weapon must be judged against the normally lethal alternatives. A typical hostage rescue operation involves a violent plan that results in the death of the hostage takers and the rescue of the hostages. The weapons employed are concussion grenades, flashbang devices, and conventional small arms. The tactics involve the so-called "double tap" - one bullet to the chest and one to the head. Even a well-executed mission can result in the deaths of one or more hostages. The primary potential usefulness of nonlethal weapons is the decreased chance of lethality for the hostages and the possibility of increased safety for the rescuers. <span id='postcolor'>

Source - http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/soundweapon/weapon2.htm

Anyway, not to argue about it, just trying to point out where the mutual misunderstanding might have come from.

[sgtvor 0]

Actually that last source is still quite "Civy" in origin.  Aside that it's hosted at Angelfire.com, it also clearly states at the end that everything complied in that document was done so entirely by the author, with no support of the US government.  Hence..."Civy".

Due to the specific use of the words "Double-Tap" in the rules of warfare, that term is strictly no-no for military personal.  What most people think of as a double tap is generally called a "Two shot group" or something very similar by most military personal.

[BAS-Damocles 0]

What I said was

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well your civilian glossary of terms is great<span id='postcolor'>

Which is exactly what it is, I looked at your link. Not that you were a civilian. For all I know, you could be a SEAL, or a Delta Operator. (In which case you wouldnt be posting to this forum or talking about it, you know that whole OPSEC thing)

I've been around the community (Special Operations Community for a number of years, and I have never heard, nor am I familiar with the term AFAIK. I do understand that there may be members of other then US operators posting here, and my experience and statements are from personal experience and knowledge of what the US if working with.

Once again, if you will actually read my post, and the context in which the term was used (Coming back to an already downed target and shooting the bodies or wounded AGAIN, after having engaged and assualted through) You will see that this is completely different then even the source you just quoted, which is in fact a term common among Law enforcement personnel.

All the info you provided about the Non Lethal weapons are also based on civilian technology and requirements, and the US Armed forces is only very recently becoming very involved in these types of systems. In fact the US Marine Corps. has the largest such training programs of all the services. (Probably something to do with the fact that they have Embassy guard duty, and are often forced to deal with non combatants.)

Im not arguing either, nor do I have a misunderstanding, what I do see however is that people are quick to discount and attempt to disprove information without even reading the original statement carefully enough. Quoting from your own source:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The weapons employed are concussion grenades, flashbang devices, and conventional small arms. The tactics involve the so-called "double tap" - one bullet to the chest and one to the head.<span id='postcolor'>

This is not a double tap, this is a normal engagement practice, and assaulting through the target, whether it be a fully auto burst to the chest and head, or a single shot to each.

The "Illegal" double tap in the scenario you gave, would be when or if the operator returned to the target and pumped some more in the body, after having already cleared the area.

[nyles 11]

Back on topic:

Are you planning to include a real CarlGustav launcher for the Rangers?

the model itself is already done, but the OFP CG is far from being close to the real-steel thingy.

It would be great if the specops would have some more more pyrotechnical stuff, like smoke, high explosive or illumination warheads for the CG (CG missiles not guideable of course).

Another nice thing would be to have pyrotechnical 40mm grenades as well for the m203. It would definetly add to the atmoshphere.

[miles teg 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BAS-Damocles @ Feb. 21 2003,04:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">@Miles teg

The term “shoulder fired†does not at all imply that the weapon in question must be fire from the standing or kneeling unsupported position, but rather that the weapon is fired from the shoulder. This can be in the prone position (using the attached bipod), using a tripod from a crew served weapons position, or using natural elements such as a log, or a low wall to brace the weapon. I never said firing from the standing position, which has no bearing on whether a weapon is considered shoulder fired. Dragon missiles are shoulder fired, and they can only be fired one way. AT4s are shoulder fired, and they can be fired standing, kneeling, sitting, and prone. (All unsupported)

While not making light of your service time and experience, I can tell you as a professional Non Commissioned Officer of 10 Ë years (And still active), not only have I never seen any hip shooting, or training of such with either the M60, or the M240B, I can tell you that this practice is frowned on. Not only is the firing uncontrolled and ineffective, there is a strong likelihood of wounding and killing friendly troops during assaults with the unpredictable sweep of the muzzle. I have seen NCOs lose their careers over less.

FYI if you do a little research you will also find that until the advent of the M249 SAW, the M60 was considered a “light†machine gun, not a medium machine gun. In Ranger squads SAW gunners are referred to as “Automatic Riflemenâ€<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, am aware that a anti-tank rocket is a shoulder fired weapon. That is something that you do not need to explain to me nor did I challenge the usage of the term when refering to anti-tank rockets. I was talking about machine guns. All I was saying is that when you say that a machine like the M60 is a "shoulder fired" weapon, many people assume that you mean that the weapon is fired from the shoulder in the standing or kneeling unsupported position. Because of that you have to be careful how your word things because not everyone here (including myself) uses exact definitions from FM manuals. The same thing goes for the whole "double-tap" issue. I've heard Canadian and UK military people use that term when referring to hitting a target with two shots. While I am aware of it being illegal to go and shoot wounded enemy that are not resisting, I have not heard of the term "double-tap" used during any such training. But I'm don't doubt that in some units and in the training manuals it's used. Here however where you have a mix of people from all over the world, no matter what the TM's say, "double-tap" is generally regarded as two quick shots on a target done in order to insure that they go down. That's something rather important when using 5.56mm weapons.

As for firing from the hip, I am almost certain I saw that in one of my old training manuals. I'll have to dig it up. Maybe I was wrong. In my unit because of ammo limitations we didn't practice that, although on some assault training it was done but maybe it was because we were Reservists...still none of the M.I.L.E.S gear ever got set off by friendly fire and the hip shooting was generally done on arrival at the objective in order to sweep an area or in urban combat for sweeping rooms. It wasn't usually done while running because any supressive fire is risky while running in a formation because soldiers don't like running in a straight line to their target as it makes them a easier target. So they zig zag which means that they often cross in front of another soldier's line of fire. But much depends on the type of assault, the number of people in the assault element, the type of formation the terrain and the position of the machine gunner in the assault element. I know you know all that and like you said, hip shooting was frowned upon in your experience and not done. I was mainly just speaking from my own experience in a engineer unit in the Army Reserve which included training with active duty units.

I've also seen some incredible photage of a Hezbollah Minimi gunner doing a one man assault on a South Lebanese Army position when the Israelies pulled out. That guy was moving like a bat out of hell screaming like a madman, but also putting down very accurate suppressive fire from the hip onto the SLA position which he eventually captured after some extremely violent close quarters fighting. It might still be on file photage with the BBC, but if I can find a link to it I'll post it as it really is a phenomal example of how a SAW can be used in a high speed assault. I don't support Hezbollah by the way. But I couldn't help but be impressed at the skill and ferocity of their attacks during those last battles against the SLA...I also was surprised that the guy was using a Minimi.

If I'm not mistaken I believe also that under old Soviet Doctrine during assaults soldiers would fire their AK's from the hip while moving in formation. I'm not at home right now but I'll check in my manual on Soviet doctrine when I get home.

Anyhoo...

Don't get too upset if other people use terms differently.

Myself and others were just pointing out how most people here think of those terms whether it be from experience, or watching too many war movies.

Come on, you gotta admit Rambo and John Wayne looks cool firing from the hip! LOL!

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[m16a2m203 0]

-------------------------------------------------

See that line up ^^^^^ there. That is the TOP. And I think ya'll are all over it.  

Back to BAS. Did ya'll put in some more custom sounds in with the units. I could have sworn I heard one of my team yell out in the distance for a medic. First time I ever heard that. The burning bmp's look pretty great as well.

[.argus. 0]

First: Sorry to Damocles and the rest of the BAS team if I was too agrumentative. You are doing great things for OPF.

On the double-tap issue: Typing "double tap" and "MOUT" into Google will give you more than enough to convince you that it is a term used in the military. Examples:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/militar....ppk.pdf - One of those "civilian" field manuals on CQB techniques..

http://call.army.mil/products/nftf/mayjun00/hernandez.htm

http://www.rand.org/publications/CF/CF162/CF162.appp.pdf MOUT Training 75th RANGER REGIMENT, and so on..btw. double tap is two to the chest.(according to those links)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, you are quoteing "In Somalia" a lot. Well that was 10 years ago... and a lot can change in 10 years... (btw, if you hadn't allready guessed, the BAS Deltas/Rangers are set in the modern time-period i.e. 2003...)<span id='postcolor'> Yes, I do quote other peoples posts and reply to them. I didn't start the BHD arguments. IIRC, Damocles did.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FYI if you do a little research you will also find that until the advent of the M249 SAW, the M60 was considered a ?light? machine gun, not a medium machine gun. In Ranger squads SAW gunners are referred to as ?Automatic Riflemen?<span id='postcolor'> Um, I'll leave you as the ultimate authority on that one, but I think it was only the E3 that was called a LMG, since it could easily be used by a single operator. Btw. the M249 SAW is mostly used as an automatic rifle. It is an official designation, not just something the Rangers came up with. Remember the BAR?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

With the first statement reference M855 vs. M80 (which is 7.62mm not 5.56mm) was there a point in there somewhere you were trying to make?? My statement was involving the kinetic energy and retained velocity of a lightweight projectile (the 62 grain M855) Vs the kinetic energy and retained velocity of a heavier projectile with a better ballistic coefficient (a 175 grain .308 caliber projectile such as M118LR) My information is supported by physics and science and countless hours of collected data.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, it was the beginning of the point: "the 5.56 isn't shit".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As to the claim that M855 can penetrate a PASGT helmet at 1100 meters, I?d love to see the data. Additionally, since that is well beyond the maximum effective range of M855, again I fail to see the point behind that statement. If you can hit a target the size of a PASGT at 1100 meters with M855, then you need to try out for the US Army Service Rifle Team. I can give you the Coach, and the NCOICs phone number and email address. Send pictures. <span id='postcolor'> I seem to have troubles to see where I wrote people could hit the helmet at that range, how odd. I only said that the bullet was CAPABLE and superior to the M80. Again, leading up to my point about: "the 5.56 isn't shit". Source(not really the source I had read, but the first thing I managed to find on the internet): http://remtek.com/arms/fn/minimi/index.htm

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> The SS109 5.56mm bullet easily outperforms the M80 7.62mm, as it will penetrate the U.S. Army steel helmet at 1,100 meters. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In your OWN statement you claim that M855 will fragment when it hits human tissue at velocities above 3500 FPS. Considering that M855 has a muzzle velocity of 3300 FPS at the muzzle and about 2985 FPS at 25 meters? Well what was your point again? (Values as measured thousands of times at the USAMU Ammunition Test Facility, Parks Range, Fort Benning Georgia, US Army Infantry Center and School. Measured by Oehler Cronograph systems, and SUIS ASCOR electronic target systems, providing muzzle, in flight, and downrange data collection.) <span id='postcolor'> Did you know that "2" and "3" are situated really close togheter on the keyboard? And it isn't a typo that stands out either. Here my point is that unless the M885 is moving at less than 2500fps then it will not "pass cleanly through human tissue" as you said it would.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Oh and bones, not fat are what disturbs the stabilization of a projectile and causes tumbling. An overweight person would actually be more likely to survive a gunshot would as fat cells, and the human body in general are largely water, and water absorbs and redistributes energy extremely efficiently. <span id='postcolor'> Oh, did I say that the fat fellow would die? Nope. I said his wounds would be more severe since the M80 would be less likely to overpenetrate. This has not much to do with hydrodynamics, more with the simple fact that the bullet wouldn't overpenetrate.

And it is not necessarily just bones that cause bullets to tumble. This is the place where you should have started with the hydrodynamics. Something might get lost in the translation so I'll go with the easy way of putting this: All bullets with a centre of gravity towards the rear will tumble in a dense medium like human tissue since they "want" to go tail first. Actually, the bullets "want" to go rear end first in air as well, but the rotation of the bullet prevents this.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

CAR-15s where also using M193 (55 grain, copper jacketed lead, no steel penetrator) Or 9mm Parabelum, Rangers didn?t have them, and Delta were using XM177s, with Optical Sights and spitzer bullets, not M855. The Rangers had lots of problems with killing and incapacitating targets that were all on a narcotic, further reducing the effectiveness of the 62 grain steel penetrator. <span id='postcolor'> Lots of new stuff there for me, I only saw the film, heard the book was..not so good. Lets just repeat one thing: You can't expect to just shoot one bullet into the torso of a determined attacker and expect him to drop dead. The use of carbines does not enhance the potential of the 5.56x45mm, even if it is M193. Btw. seems odd that they were mixing M193 and M855, especially since you can't use the M855 in a weapon meant to fire the M193..(effectively)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

As to the question of whether or not I may be joking, absolutely not, you should do some more research. Just following the links regarding M855 Ball you?ll discover all manner of information on calibers being evaluated to replace the 5.56mm because of its poor performance. <span id='postcolor'> Seriously? You said:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its kind of immaterial if you punch someones vest and they still kill you because the werent even knocked off their feet.<span id='postcolor'>  "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." This would mean that if you actually found a bullet capable of knocking you opponent off his feet, then it would also knock you down. Not very practical.

People are always looking for improvements, that's nothing new. If the 5.56 is really so utterly useless, as you say it is, why are then many countries still moving away from 7.62x51mm based weapons and onto 5.56x45mm based weapons? Not to mention that the US have been using the things for nearly 30 years now..

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The M249 Was intended to replace the M60 as the machine gun in Infantry Platoons. This was immediately reworked immediately after fielding, due to the lack of firepower provided by the 5.56mm, even when fired fully automatic. <span id='postcolor'> AFAIK, on a squad level, then one M249 would replace two M16A1s. It was only supposed to replace some M60s in non-infantry units. The M240 replaced the M60.

[Shashman 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">warheads for the CG (CG missiles not guideable of course).

<span id='postcolor'>

the 84mm Carl Gustav anti-tank weapon is not a missile launcher, but a recoilless gun.

Heh, in the Falklands conflict a Royal marine used his CG first to shoot down an Argentine chopper and then put a hole through the side plate of a destroyer!

[nyles 11]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shashman @ Feb. 21 2003,20:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">warheads for the CG (CG missiles not guideable of course).

<span id='postcolor'>

the 84mm Carl Gustav anti-tank weapon is not a missile launcher, but a recoilless gun.  

Heh, in the Falklands conflict a Royal marine used his CG first to shoot down an Argentine chopper and then put a hole through the side plate of a destroyer!  <span id='postcolor'>

yeyeye

Still the request remains unanswered: Will there be a proper CG recoiless gun with different types of ammunition for the rangers some day?

[mattmayhem 0]

The whole point of a 5.56 mm weapon is not to kill anyways. It is to wound someone so it will remove 3 guys from the feild, 1 guy wounded and 2 to pull him out. I geuss thats all fine in a conventional war, but I can think of many situations (somalia?) where you want the guy you hit to die.

[miles teg 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (.argus. @ Feb. 21 2003,20:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The M249 Was intended to replace the M60 as the machine gun in Infantry Platoons. This was immediately reworked immediately after fielding, due to the lack of firepower provided by the 5.56mm, even when fired fully automatic. <span id='postcolor'>

AFAIK, on a squad level, then one M249 would replace two M16A1s. It was only supposed to replace some M60s in non-infantry units. The M240 replaced the M60.<span id='postcolor'>

Yup... my old unit was one of the ones that got our M60's taken away from us and replaced by M249's...those bastards. That was really stupid of them in my opinion as it took away a great long range weapon. I didn't care so much about the great killing power of the 7.62mmx51mm bullet, but I did care about the fact that most M60 gunners were capable of easily hitting targets at 600 meters and farther with the M60. If your opponent just has AK-47's, you can really nail the hell out of them with the M60 if they are caught out in the open or even if they are behind trees or thin walls. It was my favorite weapon 2nd only to the MK-19.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>