Modern us infantry

[coporal_punishment 0]

TO be honest we (Rudedog and me) havn't dicided which weapons to use on our crews and infantry.

So far everyone here is leaning towards Earls stuff.

Um but persoally I would like to do what reconmercs said just take it one step at a time.

[reconmercs 0]

Quote[/b] ]For this purpose M4 was latter modified with the  so which one does the US Army use? M4 or M4A1?

the US Army uses both versions..conventional "regular units" units get the M4 three round burst version while special operation units like Army Special Forces "Green Berets", the 75th Ranger Regiment or Delta use the version that is full auto capable.

[SASR Sabre 0]

men i have to say two words for the weapons: Drill Sergeant

His weapons are without textures but if you find someone to do it you have earl and maybe better qaulity. but no1 will texture them for him so plz someone step up to the challenge and texture hes "large" but excellent pack  

only problem is you will be delayed for textures so it make take abit longer which im sure no one wont's but with stuff like BAS time means qaulity  

[coporal_punishment 0]

I'm too lasy to reserch can someone show me the difference between ALICE and MOLE

[MSpencer 0]

DS makes awesome weapons. You should consider using his stuff. It's all configged and ready for O2 (I'm his "Consultant"), and you may want to look into using his SOF Weapons pack.

[marine26thmeu 0]

Corporal, I don't think it really matters between the MOLLE or the ALICE systems, it's just more work as you've said. Especially as how US units still use alice as well as molle/molle II, and SF units use LBT gear which is somewhere in between ALICE and MOLLE. Seeing that you have the unit's texturing and weapons to contend with you shouldn't have to worry about something as little as that. Also there are many great US infantry/SF units such as WGL mod, all BAS SF operators, INQ soldiers, E&S MARPATs, etc do you think you could use one of the existing weapons? Whether it's INQ's M16 series, E&S MARPAT's M16A4s, or WGL standard M16A2 I think they are all good, already with their own optics plus they would be compatiable with whichever one you chose. It also has a practical side so that there isn't another different type of ammo/weapons type when playing with other units. The fact that you're retexturing and rearming these US infantry is a lot of work, so I figure maybe you could use an already existing weapons pack. Just my opinion. Thanks

[Drill Sergeant 0]

Ok ALICE uses clips and slides to attach gear to a central belt suspender rig.

STRIKE/MOLE uses loops of cloth with buttons, velcro or snaps to attach things. the Vest that takes the place of the ALICE belt is called a RACK.

Alice is not as configurable as MOLE and it's prety stiff to use with all the 2 inch webing. Some times on a mole system ya velcro or snaps come loose and ya gear falls off.  

*Hint hint* action "Pick up and re attach mag pouch"  

Here's some examples.  

This is a RACK.

This is the MOLE.

This is a STRIKE

and here's how they attach

All them little loops go thrue the loops on the MOLE/RACK/STRIKE systems.

Alice just uses metal clips and metal bands to hold stuff on a bellt or webing. Takes a bit of time to move stuff around on it.

[Edgie 0]

"STRIKE" is just BlackHawk Industries name for their line of MOLLE compatible gear. Their only saving grace is that they can produce MASSIVE amounts of gear in a relatively short period of time--it's all made in Vietnam, afterall--for people who need it, need a lot of it, and need it RIGHT NOW. Otherwise, pretty much all they do is copy other gear manufacturers. With the STRIKE line they've copied off Eagle Industries, who in turn, copied Paraclete Armor.

General issue for the Army these days is the MOLLE II system, which is produced by Specialty Defense Systems (a division of Specialty Plastics). Unfortunately, it is not the greatest of kits, but it is a step in the right direction.

[coporal_punishment 0]

Okay like many people requested I've made the cammo smaller but the detail had been slightly (majorly) lost no matter how many times and different ways I've tried to convert it to .paa.

Larger Size

Well anyway there's the pic, the next thing I plan to work on is a propper looking vest I'll make the textures 512*512 or 256*256 because I really wanna shot detail.

Then i'll work on the patrol cap and then carry on with desert varients the 3 tone and the choc chip respectivally.

Oh here are some pics of Infantry

These infantry are shown with INQ weapons (we are thinking aboutusing DSAs). They still have my old cammo scheme.

Pretty much what I said in the other screenshot

This is the smaller cammo I added, I don't like the detail becuase much of it is lost. A ref to the pic: the bloke on the left is blackop day and the bloke on the right is dlackop night.

1024*768 are available HERE

[aj_addons 0]

looks nice any chance of a beta nudge nudge

[coporal_punishment 0]

looks nice any chance of a beta nudge nudge    

i'll post one on you know which FTP

[Edgie 0]

The USMC cap is not worn by the Army, or any other service except for the Marines...

[jotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]The USMC cap is not worn by the Army, or any other service except for the Marines...

Have you read the thread?

[CrunchyFrog 0]

Earls weapons are the best, no doubt about that... but does the army use the M16A4 yet?

[munger 25]

Regular US infantry still uses M16A2's and M4's, with the M16's seemingly being phased out in favour of the M4's. If you wanted a good M16A2 in the same style as Earl's other weapons, why not just use Suchey's old marine unit release (the one with the desert MARPAT helmet and the woodland chemical suit)?

[miles teg 1]

Nope, I don't think the US Army has any plans on using the M16A4. So far the M4 seems to be getting good reviews for CQB work in Iraq. There is also the OICW (or whatever they changed its designation to now) but I'm not sure whether or not it will totally replace the M4/M16 or whether they will make the rifle section only (without the 20mm cannon section) for the majority of soldiers. If I remember correctly the rifle section is based off of the G-36 design, so it should be fairly good. However there is some question as to whether it's as compact as the M4, which is pretty damn tiny...something that is important in urban combat where long weapons are very ackward when trying to maneuver around corners and doorways.

At any rate, from what I understand, the M4 (and its many variants) will be used by the US Army for quite some time. Many US Army units are also still using the M16A2 which is slightly superior to the M4 in places like Afghanistan where you have more long range engagements. I was surprised for example to see video of a US soldier carrying a captured bolt-action British Enfield rifle in Afghanistan. Gun enthusiasts know that the .303 British Enfield has a reputation for good long range accuracy which I imagine is why he was using it.

Not all US Army units have snipers attached to them so I am not surprised that some soldiers and their commanders took it upon themselves to equip their soldiers with captured weapons that fill that long range gap. The only other weapon that does it is the M240 machine gun but that is a platoon level weapon so there aren't many of them.

The M16A2 at least has fairly descent range and with a optical sight or scope added to it, it can hit accurately out to probably around 500 meters. Even with an iron sight, if the rifleman is a good shot he can make such hits as well. Although very few riflemen have this ability.

The USMC train to shoot out to 500 meters actually.

The US Army only trains soldiers to shoot out to 300 meters.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[dm 9]

If you wanted a good M16A2 in the same style as Earl's other weapons, why not just use Suchey's old marine unit release

Or you could use the M16A2 that was included in the up-to-date MA Pack

(reading the readme's always helps)

[MSpencer 0]

Edgie:

I have mentioned this 30-40 times. I refuse to say it again.

Read the damned thread first, it has been stated... and stated, and stated, and stated over and over again.

This is what pisses me off. Ignorance.

[Drill Sergeant 0]

#1 Please note.

OFW has replaced the m16 with the XM8 and mods of it.

The M29 will be the heavy weapon of the US army. (EX OICW)

The M29 is also modular like the XM8.

Though the M4a4 and M16a4 will still remain in service.

[munger 25]

If you wanted a good M16A2 in the same style as Earl's other weapons, why not just use Suchey's old marine unit release

Or you could use the M16A2 that was included in the up-to-date MA Pack

(reading the readme's always helps)

I usually do but in the case of the Marine Pack I must confess to being in such a hurry to try it out I just whacked the PBO's in the addons folder and fired up OFP.

[Landwarrior87 0]

my lack of knowledge on the M-4 has puzzled me lately.. THE MAJORITY of the pics i have seen from iraq from the 82nd Airborne and 101st are M-4A1's.. it says it in the pics and i cant find anymore info on the 3rd burst M4 in the ARMY NOW can you attach acog and reflex scopes to the "M-4" because thats all i see now is either M16's or M-4A1's.

and the M-8 should go into full production in 2005 and should hit the field as early as 2006. got this from an article on yahoo a times back. it got good reviews from soldiers, lightweight and hardly any recoil.

[reconmercs 0]

my lack of knowledge on the M-4 has puzzled me lately.. THE MAJORITY of the pics i have seen from iraq from the 82nd Airborne and 101st are M-4A1's.. it says it in the pics and i cant find anymore info on the 3rd burst M4 in the ARMY NOW can you attach acog and reflex scopes to the "M-4" because thats all i see now is either M16's or M-4A1's.

and the M-8 should go into full production in 2005 and should hit the field as early as 2006. got this from an article on yahoo a times back. it got good reviews from soldiers, lightweight and hardly any recoil.

dude, the M4 used by regular units is NOT full auto capable.I don't how else to put it...Its just a common misconception..as for sights...they are capable of holding all the sights any M4 could use. As for the M16A4 one of my friends how is deployed downrange with the 1st Armored (which is army) has mentioned some of his buddies in his squad are now using A4s so I'm not sure if it's just a marine thing or not...when I email him again..I'll ask him again to be sure...

[hellfish6 7]

The new XM8 is due to be deployed in two brigades later this year for testing. If all goes well, and it sounds like it will, the M-16s and M-4s will be phased out of service by 2012, I think.

[hellfish6 7]

Not all US Army units have snipers attached to them so I am not surprised that some soldiers and their commanders took it upon themselves to equip their soldiers with captured weapons that fill that long range gap.  The only other weapon that does it is the M240 machine gun but that is a platoon level weapon so there aren't many of them.  

Actually, I think most units are starting to adopt a squad structure with a marksman instead of a rifleman in one fire team. Essentially this marksman will have an M-21 rifle with optics, but won't exactly be a sniper. I know the 82nd has used this squad structure in Afghanistan and I think the 101st had it in Iraq as well. I'm pretty sure it's been said that all other active duty units will adopt marksmen as they can afford it.

[Edgie 0]

Wow, rape me with a dildo some more why don't y'all?

Regardless, with HK producing a M4 of their own, I'm not quite so sure how it's going to affect the XM8 project at all. After all, the M4 platform already does everything the XM8 is meant to do...