Deltas and rangers released!

[SGTKOPP 0]

MK-19 now thats fun when i was in korea we hit the rice paddies on accident

[r71 0]

I just wish every mod that make a gun would use iron sights like this http://www.baconbomb.com/usmc/ If you want a real looking gun you should only make it that way. Not saying that the ones you have look bad, but the one in the pic is more realistic.  

[PFC_Mike 2]

R71 is absolutely right, that's the way to do sights of any kind except maybe sniper scopes. Certainly for reflex, aimpoint, and ACOG aiming devices (i'm not getting that idiotic scopes vs. sights debate started again)

anyway, I think that different military forces, even in the same country, have different terms for stuff.

Is it alright to shoot someone if you aren't sure if they're dead or not? I know that was pretty standard US practice during WW2 becuase you simply couldn't be sure if that Japanese "corpse" might throw a nade at you. I'm willing to bet that Al-Qaida is just as dedicated/resourceful/crazy to use similar tactics.

I'm really think that new animations, especially for pistols. is a good idea. Just look at the SOCOM screenshots. If you call that quality becuase the weapon looks nice, I hope you never work for a quality control department. The hands-through-the grip really doesn't work.

[USMC Sniper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC_Mike @ Feb. 22 2003,04:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">R71 is absolutely right, that's the way to do sights of any kind except maybe sniper scopes. Certainly for reflex, aimpoint, and ACOG aiming devices (i'm not getting that idiotic scopes vs. sights debate started again)

anyway, I think that different military forces, even in the same country, have different terms for stuff.

Is it alright to shoot someone if you aren't sure if they're dead or not? I know that was pretty standard US practice during WW2 becuase you simply couldn't be sure if that Japanese "corpse" might throw a nade at you. I'm willing to bet that Al-Qaida is just as dedicated/resourceful/crazy to use similar tactics.

I'm really think that new animations, especially for pistols. is a good idea. Just look at the SOCOM screenshots. If you call that quality becuase the weapon looks nice, I hope you never work for a quality control department. The hands-through-the grip really doesn't work.<span id='postcolor'>

I think pistols should be held with one hand.

Plus, for Uzi's and Ingrams, I think that the default rifle holding anim isn't good for them, there should be a new anim that lets the hand be on the grip of the Uzi and also one that can make the ingram be held with two hands.

[CuteQA 0]

Just wondering why there is no US flag arm patch?

Will BAS put US flag arm patch on the Ranger's right arm??  

[SGTKOPP 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CuteQA @ Feb. 22 2003,04:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just wondering why there is no US flag arm patch?

Will BAS put US flag arm patch on the Ranger's right arm??  

<span id='postcolor'>

the flag isnt always worn when deployed or on missions overseas. it is usally worn on peacekeeping missions.

[CuteQA 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SGTKOPP @ Feb. 22 2003,06:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CuteQA @ Feb. 22 2003,04:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just wondering why there is no US flag arm patch?

Will BAS put US flag arm patch on the Ranger's right arm??  

<span id='postcolor'>

the flag isnt always worn when deployed or on missions overseas.  it is usally worn on peacekeeping missions.   <span id='postcolor'>

Dumb Q1. Is Operation Enduring Freedom peacekeeping operation??

Dumb Q2. is flag arm patch usually on the right arm??

[blackdog~ 0]

LOOK IN THE README!

It can be put on soldiers using the setObjectTexture command!

[CuteQA 0]

I have already read and tried it before, but the flag become very strange shape

[NavyEEL 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CuteQA @ Feb. 22 2003,04:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dumb Q2. is flag arm patch usually on the right arm?? <span id='postcolor'>

it can go on either arm, as long as the blue field is pointed forward so that when the person/vehicle is in natural forward motion, the flag would be in a "waving" position.

[CuteQA 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Feb. 22 2003,07:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CuteQA @ Feb. 22 2003,04:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dumb Q2. is flag arm patch usually on the right arm?? <span id='postcolor'>

it can go on either arm, as long as the blue field is pointed forward so that when the person/vehicle is in natural forward motion, the flag would be in a "waving" position.<span id='postcolor'>

wow! i never know that!!! thanks dude!!!!!!

[CuteQA 0]

how about right arm for flag patch, and left arm for ranger patches?

[Peanut 0]

I also heared another theory once: The armpatch is flipped  on one side, because the stars should be as close as possible to the heart.

Dunno if it's true.

[PHY_Hawkeye 0]

This Thread covers the flag patch issue very well.

BAS, great work. You guys are the masters

[CuteQA 0]

I use the patch code on the BAS soldier, but the flag i think is too big, I hope BAS will fix the problem.

[BAS-Damocles 0]

@ .argus. and Also @ PFC_Mike (And absorb only what is applicable to you, as not all of these statements are directed at you, nor are all of them directed at .argus.)

At this point it is clear that you are simply trying to be argumentative about the whole business, so this will be my last response to you in this forum. I say this because many of the counterpoints you are attempting to make are what I was saying to begin with, so Im not really sure WHY youre countering.

Firstly, it is very clear that you didnt truly carefully read and understand what I posted because in some instances, you were actually reitterating and making my point for me, and not at all getting the point.

Secondly I think we can agree that Civil law enforcement CQB and military CQB are tactically quite a different thing, with the exception of instances in which hostage rescue, or VIP extraction scenarios are concerned. Even in that case, military operations differ tactically in that A military operators primary function is not to take bad guys into custody and uphold the law, but rather close with and kill the enemy. Units like the SAS, and SFOD-D dont perform high risk entry missions with the thought in mind of "How many badguys can I capture alive" they do it with the thought of "protect and extract hostages and KILL badguys"

In the same way, regular infantry units perform CQB to CLEAR the structures of enemy personnel. This doesnt mean see how many we can get to surrender, or see how many we can capture alive. This means destroy and remove the presence of the enemy in the area.

Once again I was answering questions and making statements based on first hand info, personal experience, and years of study. If you will research objectively, im sure youll come across many of the items I discussed.

have a look at this:

Janes IDR October 2002, "Small arms ammunition advances bit by bit" by Charles Q. Cutshaw on Pages 36-37 reports:

"There have been several reports from troops in Afghanistan regarding the lack of lethality of the SS109/M855 cartridge, particularly when it is fired from an M4 (US) or M8 (Canadian) carbine. This was also observed in Somalia. For the SS109/M855 to achieve lethality, it must be moving at a velocity of over 732m/s when it strikes its target. At this velocity and above, the bullet penetrates a short distance and then begins to yaw as its spinning slows and it tends to return to normal stable state, which is base forward. As the bullet yaws, it comes apart at the cannelure, scattering fragments and causing a relatively large wound channel. In practical terms, this translates to approximately 200m with a bullet fired from an M16 or similar rifle with a 558mm barrel at approximately 914m/s.

When fired from a carbine, however, the SS109/M855 bullet leaves the barrel with a velocity of only about 790m/s. Therefore by the time it has traveled downrange only 50m it has already dropped below the velocity threshold for enhanced wound ballistics. The net effect is that troops equipped with M4 or M8 carbines are using weapons that are only marginally more effective ballistically than a 0.22 Magnum at anything other an close-quarters battle distances.

The lack of wounding efficacy has caused some military elements to begin exploring the possibility of adopting a 5.56x45mm cartridge with an improved bullet or even a different caliber altogether with improved wound ballistics. Most of these efforts, now only in the earliest stages, have experimented with heavier bullets. For example, US special operations forces in Afghanistan now employ a match cartridge manufactured by US company Black Hills Ammunition that fires a 5g bullet at 792m/s in the M4 Carbine. This cartridge has proven to have improved terminal ballistics over the SS109/M855. Other experiments have been conducted with bullets weighting as much as 6.5g. Some have proposed adopting an entirely new caliber, but this is unlikely in the immediate futures."

I think we can all agree that Jane's is a fairly well respected publication the world over, and in fact their publications are used to this day by ALL BRANCHES of the US Military for various purposes. Here's a response to the Jane's info from someone who seems to know what they are talking about:

"Dear Sir,

Let me first say that I find your website to be fascinating and informative.

Let me also say that I am no great proponent of the 5.56 cartridge.

I believe that there was a typo or some kind of error in the text written by Mr. Cutshaw in the article he wrote for 'Janes' concerning the lethality of the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge. Mr. Cutshaw states that the SS-109 / M-855 must be traveling at over 732m/s to properly fragment. Mr. Cutshaw also states that the standard M-16 generates a muzzle velocity of 914 m/s with its 20" barrel and the M-4 only yields 790 m/s with its 16" barrel. He states that the SS-109/M-855 falls below the 'required' 732 m/s at the 200-meter mark when fired from the M-16. He also claims that the SS-109 falls below 732 m/s at only 50 meters when fired from the M-4. This is impossible. Generally 1" difference in barrel length equals a difference of 30 fps. By following this formula we find that if the M-16 fires this round at 2900 fps the M-4 should fire it at 2720 fps. Even at the most extreme, the M-4 must achieve at least 2600 fps at the muzzle. If we assign a ballistic coefficient of .265 to the SS-109 bullet and crunch the numbers we find that if the muzzle velocity is 2900 fps, at 200 yards the bullet is moving at 2218 fps. Using a muzzle velocity of 2600, at 115 yards the bullet is still moving at 2222 fps.

Mr. Cutshaw also states that the SS-109/M-855 'breaks at the cannelure' to achieve its superior knockdown power. I am not an expert on the wound ballistics of the SS-109 bullet, however I wonder if Mr. Cutshaw wasn't referring to the older 55-grain ball ammunition. This ammunition, indeed, broke into two pieces at the cannelure.

From what I understand many troopers are now using the Black Hills 77-grain match ammo in the field. According to Mr. Cutshaw this is to enhance the wounding capabilities of the .223 cartridge. This ammunition is loaded with the 77-grain Sierra Match King bullet. This bullet does not have a cannelure and does not incorporate the 'enhanced wounding' design features of the SS-109. As this bullet is heavier than the 62-grain SS-109, it does not achieve the same muzzle velocity. Sierra does not recommend this bullet or any 'Match King' bullet for hunting applications because they are not designed to expand. They are, however very accurate bullets with a high ballistic coefficient. They are not as susceptible to the wind at long range and I imagine they are good for blasting through brush.

The 7.62 is obviously much more powerful than the 5.56. With proper bullet design stopping power would obviously be higher with the larger caliber. There is however no guarantee that those failures of the 5.56 to stop the enemy would have been cured by using the heavier cartridge. Often a deer continues to run after being hit solidly with a 30-06 rifle. The .5.56 cartridge is of course much lighter which allows a Soldier to carry much more. It is also more difficult to design a rifle weighing less than eight pounds around the larger cartridge.

Incidentally, just because a cartridge is more powerful, that doesn't mean that it necessarily is better for long range shooting. Of course the terminal energy will probably be greater but the smaller cartridge may buck the wind better and/or shoot flatter. As an example look at the little 6mmBR cartridge loaded with the 107-grain Sierra Match King. This combination shoots flatter than the 7.62 and bucks the wind better - in fact it is almost the equal of the venerable .300 Winchester Magnum in every area except terminal energy.

Yours,

A freedom loving American"

Former marine officer, Carlton Meyer writes that we need even more firepower for urban combat success:

"I agree we shouldn't reconfigure infantry for the remote chance of more mountain warfare, but I don't see jungle warfare in the future either; it will be 90% urban warfare (as a percent of casualties). The big issue is body armor, retired Col Gallmeier who worked that issue says the Army is in for nasty surprise if it encounters a body armored opponent with its 5.56mm or even 7.62mm weapons. The tiny frags from a 20mm OIWC will have little effect too, remember our helmets can take 7.62mm rounds. Notice whenever a body armor clad Israeli Soldier is killed by gunfire, its always a head or neck shot.

However, I agree that leaping to a new cartridge is a big step. I agree with the Marine Corps idea for one or two sharpshooters per squad, but I'd arm them with a .338 or an extra-light .50 cal. Not only for body armor, but doors, walls, cars, LAVs, and lastly, for sniping. There is an exploding Raufoss .50 round that I've read is frightening.

And yes, one RPG equipped grunt per squad. And I'd add a new lightweight 7.62mm machine gun per squad too. Yes, this lots of extra weight, but I'd cut the three 5.56mm M249 machine guns out of each squad (that' a Marine Corps squad, I don't know what the Army uses) At 22 lbs each (loaded), I don't see the light 5.56mm MG adding much to the mix.

Each squad would have two light 5.56mm rifle maneuver fire teams, and one weapons team with a 7.62mm MG, an RPG, and an extra-light .50 rifle"

Phil West and a former Army enlisted Ranger and Army officer observe:

"By 1945 the Germans had the tools they wanted for infantry, and considerable experiance knowing what worked.

The best equipped squads would have one or two MG42s [medium machine guns] for their main offensive firepower. Most Soldiers would have an SMG or STG for manuver/CQB/Self defence -but, in most photos you'll see there was always at least one squad member that retained the Kar98 rifle. You see this in "Cross of Iron" in the warehouse scene -while the guys with automatic weapons keep the Russians back the rifleman takes his time and makes them count.

Second historical thing

The idea of intermediate rounds (optimised for 500m or less) was a German wartime concept. The usual explanation you see is that in most of the world visibility prevents shooting at more than this range. Since MGs and snipers routinely shoot at greater ranges, the accepted explanation is obviously wrong!

By 1942 the German Army was very familar with alpine and desert fighting-and it is very "un-german" that these would not have been figured into developement of the intermediate rounds. My theory is this. It is accuracy not visibility that is the limiting factor.

A 7.92mm or lesser bullet takes around a second to reach 600m. In that time an aware target can sprint 5-9m -you don't know which direction he will take, and he'll often be darting between cover. Your chance of hitting him with a single-aimed shot is virtually random. I think most shooting was less than 500m because most german riflemen knew there was little point shooting beyond this unless the foe didn't know you were there or you could fill an area of about 10m with bullets.

A couple of friends confirm this with more recent experiences:-

Friend A

'DOD did the same kinds of studies for all kinds of terrain, same result/conclusions; usual infantry engagement was 300 yards or less (didn't matter what you were armed with, typical infantry could not get hits at greater than 300m unless shooting volleys in mass or using machineguns. I was a former USMC National Match M-14 shooter and I can testify that even then the average infantryman was not going to get hits beyond 300m.) If you are under 1000m you call company or battalion mortars or MGs or Mark 19 (full-auto grenade launcher), artillary and air strikes are for better targets that are further off. The point is correct on not firing individual weapons at longer than 300m, you won't kill them and they can call fire down on you!'

Friend B

'If you sight a target element that far away it is much more tactically feasible to call in artillery fire or an air strike thus saving your infantry the suicidal need for a half mile movement-to-contact. If you don't have fire support it is better to get closer before engagement to limit your target's tactical options. 500 to 700 meters gives them room to do just about anything. Especially if you have let them know you were there by shooting at them from that distance. They may HAVE fire support!!'

I used to advocate that mountain units should be issued 7.62mm rifles likethe FAL for "more range" -but now I begin to rethink. If you are not shooting at 1000m, a 20-24" barreled M16 is less of a burden to carry up the mountain.

The 7x45mm sabot round would solve performance -more carrying power, better terminal effects and less effected by cross winds.

On the 5.56mm -best terminal effects are when the round fragments -for both the M193 and the M855 this is at less than 200m for a M16, 150m for a M4 and does not occur when fired from barrels under 14.5" -so how much use for defence is that 10" under the OICW? A smart fused 40mm grenade for the SACO Striker GMG already exists -with a reduced charge this should work in the M203 etc. As said, the AR15 is modular -you can change a M4 to a M16 by just drifting out a pin and changing the barrel and reciver top -no need to provide both M4s and M16s for every trooper"

In any event, thorough research, rather then off the cuff generalized statements will produce quite a different view based on both sides of the argument.

Another factor that is completely left out of the discussion is environmental conditions and how they relate and affect the ballistic performance of ammunition.

It is scientific and mathematical fact that the same identical type of ammunition, even that drawn from the same production lot of ammunition will perform completely differently at differing altitudes, humidities, temperatures, and thousands of other factors.

Real world results (Information coming from the soldiers in the field) are drastically different from the results achieved in a controlled laboratory environment, firing rounds into ballistic gelatin in a climate controlled doppler tunnel.

.argus. As to your statement about M855 (SS109) penetrating a PASGT at 1100 meters, your OWN information (The link you provided) said it penetrated US Army Steel helmets at 1100 meters, which is a far cry from a PASGT, and the current issue helmets (SPEAR/ MICH series, TC2000, TC2001, TC2002) provide even greater protection than the PASGT.

Also of interest, you may want to read FM 7-8 Rifle Squad, Change 1

FM 7-30 Infantry Brigade; Appendix J: Urban Operations

FM 90-10-1 An Infantryman's Guide to Combat in Built-Up Areas, 12 MAY 1993 , CHANGE 1, 3 OCTOBER 1995

In any event .argus. Just by following links and info from the sources you provided, I was able to reinforce my statements. You should try it. As to the comment about BHD, and starting an argument, I did no such thing. Once again if you research you will find that the M855 (SS109)'s performance left something to be desired, and additionally just as currently you will find that Delta wasnt using M855, (untill ammunition became short.) they were using much more accurate and incidently heavier projectiles (Match grade non expanding Hollow Point Boat Tails) made by Sierra Bullets, as well as a few other types.

I could post support information all day, but I'd really just like once for a couple of you guys to actually do a little research before attempting to blast someone with both barrels, especially when lots of your info is innaccurate or out dated.

I dont discount anyones experience or views and opinions, however when it comes to technical and factual data, I will research what you provide as well as present my own information.

But hey, Im just a soldier, what do I know anyway.

[BAS-Damocles 0]

In the unlikely event this will at all help with my credibility I thought I'd share it. Received it back when I was a "buck" Sergeant.

Once again, I'm just a soldier what do I know.

[vade_101 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I use the patch code on the BAS soldier, but the flag i think is too big, I hope BAS will fix the problem.<span id='postcolor'>

if its too big. make your own. its not trickey.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (vade_101 @ Feb. 22 2003,21:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if its too big. make your own. its not trickey.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe BAS could open up a special email address where people could send their patch image files.

Eventually, when they have neough quality files, submitted to them, BAS could release an arm-patch addon pack.

[BAS-Damocles 0]

Avon, did you ever see my answers to the questions you posted? I wasnt sure if you did, I wanted you to know I didnt overlook you.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BAS-Damocles @ Feb. 22 2003,21:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Avon, did you ever see my answers to the questions you posted? I wasnt sure if you did, I wanted you to know I didnt overlook you.<span id='postcolor'>

There have been a number of questions, suggestions and problems. What are you referring to?

[BAS-Damocles 0]

You were asking what the various names and designations meant, such as RTO etc... I posted a reply to you, I wasnt sure whether you saw it.

Of course judging by my fan base, I dont know if my explanations are to be trusted.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BAS-Damocles @ Feb. 22 2003,21:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You were asking what the various names and designations meant, such as RTO etc...  I posted a reply to you, I wasnt sure whether you saw it.<span id='postcolor'>

Saw your replies. Thanks. I needed to know last week before I could release the modified Littlebirds and Rangers Demo Mission.

[PFC_Mike 2]

Damocles: Thank you for taking the time to respond to individual points and post the opinions of others and not letting this degenerate into a flame war. I don't have anything else to say.

How will the SOCOM etc. be released? Will it be part of an upgraded Rangers/Deltas or something else? Also, could you guys maybe put different sounds for trying to fire an unloaded weapon? It seems unlikely that pulling the trigger on an M4 without ammo sounds the same as doing so for an m203 but I could be wrong  

*edit* like mr. duck says in the next post, PLEASE consider doing sights lke Earl. did. Even for ACOG and Aimpoint or reflex sights that perspective is the most realistic and pretty. please please please I'll be your best friend

[mr. Duck 0]

Dudes, I'm not sure if I told you this before, but I have a suggestion for the sights/optics, how about making the sights/optics in the same perspective as earl's marine weapons?

Waddayathink?