unfair arma ?

[Col. Faulkner 0]

The idea was a 5.56 round will injure,  thus taking the wounded man,  and a mate trying to help him out of the battle.  A 7mm round generally kills so you kill a guy but don't take another guy out of the battle.

This was the official reason given by the MOD for the swap from the SLR to the SA80.

After the Falklands conflict it was noted althought he SLR was very good for long range battles.  It was terrible for close quaters and house clearing etc.  So the MOD went and got several guns designed and went with the SA80.

Moving to 5.56 mean't that our guns used the same ammo as as allies.  And the reason was given that the idea was to try and wound the people hit by rounds not always kill them. As the mags were smaller so you could carry more ammo.

That "official reason" is nothing but a myth. The real

reason boils down to the fact that since the USA had

moved to 5.56mm, NATO was pressured into following

suit. It was a repeat of the reason why 7.62mm was a

NATO standard in an earlier era.

It's true that you can carry more 5.56mm ammo than

7.62mm but that wasn't a major consideration in deciding

to adopt 5.56mm. At the time the SA80 was adopted we

were told that it was more useful in house to house stuff

in NI than an SLR and official promotional bumf went out of

its way to emphasize this. Many British soldiers at the time

were dismayed to find that the SA80 weighed the same as

an SLR (and was less well balanced - never mind the other

teething problems with it). Many of us thought at the time

that a better idea would have been to adopt 'Para versions

of the FAL, which were the same length with stock folded as

an SA80 (an important consideration when in a vehicle), hit

harder, and weighed the same as an SA80.

The Falklands War experience had nothing to do with

decisions to replace the SLR. The MOD never "went out

and got several guns designed"; design work for the XL65

system was already well underway in the late 1960s, and

the first IWs were being troop trialled in the late 1970s.

And recall that the decision to adopt a modified FN FAL

in the mid-1950s in the first place was again due to the

influence of the USA. None of the British weapons were

suitable for firing 7.62mm. Several of the prototypes were

trialled but failed. Britain never wanted the SLR but the

FN FAL was considered the best available substitute at

the time. It is often opined that the USA would have adopted

the FAL too if the acceptance tests had not been biased

in favour of the M14. But for NATO pressure, Britain would

otherwise have been using bullpup self-loading rifles based

on the  EM-2 design in British .280" calibre. They were

officially approved for service already in 1951!

[max power 21]

The idea was a 5.56 round will injure, thus taking the wounded man, and a mate trying to help him out of the battle. A 7mm round generally kills so you kill a guy but don't take another guy out of the battle.

This was the official reason given by the MOD for the swap from the SLR to the SA80.

After the Falklands conflict it was noted althought he SLR was very good for long range battles. It was terrible for close quaters and house clearing etc. So the MOD went and got several guns designed and went with the SA80.

Moving to 5.56 mean't that our guns used the same ammo as as allies. And the reason was given that the idea was to try and wound the people hit by rounds not always kill them. As the mags were smaller so you could carry more ammo.

7mm is better for long range 5.65 meduim to short. Niether hurt as much as a 5o calibre browning round ...

At close ranges the 5.56mm round will produce much more grievous wounds than a steel jacketed 7.62 round of either make because it likes to burst. In fact, the wound profile of an uncomplicated leg wound from a 7.62 soviet round resembles that of a 9mm pistol round. A 7mm bullet will produce a 7mm hole in elastic tissue. All things being equal, a 5mm bullet will produce a 5mm hole. When you start encountering nonelastic tissues like that of the liver or brain you start to see more of a difference... but this difference is caused by velocity and energy transfer, not bullet diameter. If you get shot in the guts, though, you have a hole in the guts. There's no magical killing force. There's no neurohydromesochemicopsychodynamic shock like the developers of the 'black talon' round and others write about in magazines when they try to sell you something. The majority of the damage inflicted by bullets is caused along the path that the bullet crushes though your body.

[whisper 0]

What version are you running?

Tanks were rebalanced in 1.04 or 1.05, they both have their chances now.

AK74 recoil was a plain bug and is fixed in 1.06

Just to be clear, there's still rather big difference :

M1 Armor : 900, T72 armor : 750

M1 reload time : 6s, T72 reload time : 7s

M1 Sabot damage : 800, T-72 Sabot samage : 650

M1 road speed : 72 kph , T72 road speed : 60 kph

Range config parameters are now the same, though. But the real differences between both tanks do exist in game, don't take Rastavovich's words as "we've made them equal".

Note to Suma : M119 still have 12000 and 19000 as midRange and maxRange parameters, I guess there is 1 zero too much.

[Törni 0]

The main reason why 7.62 NATO and 7.62R were abandoned in favor of 5.56 NATO and 5.45R is the fact that the bullet does more damage to living tissue if the most of the kinetic energy is used in and immediately after the impact. The larger calibers are so powerful that bullets in most cases just go through the targets instead of ripping them apart. The balance of the bullets is also different. Smaller calibers start spinnnig and rotating when they hit something.

On the other hand the smaller calibers are very prone of going astray if something gets in the way or if the target is behind some kind of cover.

[ACF 0]

design work for the XL65 system was already well underway in the late 1960s, and the first IWs were being troop trialled in the late 1970s.

...bullpup self-loading rifles based on the  EM-2 design in British .280" calibre. They were officially approved for service already in 1951!

And the IW was originally developed as a 4.85mm calibre weapon (off the top of my head). Truly a case of history repeating itself: 0.280" and 4.85mm getting steamrollered by NATO (= US) 7.62mm and 5.56mm. It's worth pointing out that calibre isn't the whole story, the original US 5.56 and the later UK 5.56 had different ballistic and terminal characteristics.

This doesn't seem to have been mentioned above: I was under the impression that the defining characteristic of an assault rifle was its use of an 'intermediate cartridge' (SMGs using larger calibres with even smaller cartridges are the other end of the spectrum).  'Small calibre' was a fashion that came along later. The FG42 used the current full-power 'rifle' round before the StG44 was developed around a new round - same calibre but a smaller cartridge. The main reason for doing this was to reduce recoil (anyone fired a FAL full auto (I haven't but have fired SLR and can extrapolate)?), but the background was that most nations appreciated that their 19th Century rifle ammo was overpowered for 'normal battle ranges'.

Other arguments for small calibre ammunition are that less recoil but higher muzzle-velocities and flatter trajectories makes shooting easier and therefore better. Secondly, Instead of carrying more rounds of small calibre ammo for the same weight, the same number of shots weigh less - one of the many attempts to reduce the weight borne by the infantryman.

Also, curved mags are a consequence of cartridge shape, not wannabe assault rifle fashion. Bren mags are curved because the .303" rounds have rimmed cases, so the rounds don't lie next to each other. More-cylindrical rimless cases stack fairly straight (e.g. 7.62 NATO) but more-conical/tapered cases create a curve (and be less prone to jamming due to easier extraction).

[Törni 0]

Quote[/b] ]

StG44 was developed around a new round - same calibre but a smaller cartridge. The main reason for doing this was to reduce recoil , but the background was that most nations appreciated that their 19th Century rifle ammo was overpowered for 'normal battle ranges'.

... the same number of shots weigh less - one of the many attempts to reduce the weight borne by the infantryman.

Dead on target with this one. And as a result of this squads' machine guns (like U.S. M60) got eventualy replaced with a weapon that fire the same round as the rest of the squad.

Intrestingly though Soviets have occasionally reverted back to use of AK47 due to their increased power (like in Afganistan). AK47s have proved their worth and reliability in Vietnam and countless third world countries. These armies do not always give their equipment proper maintenance (if any).

If I remember correctly 5.45R round was quoted as the most inhuman assault rifle round in the world. Due to the way it behaves when it hits a human body.

Still all military rifle calibers are lethal at the ranges they were designed to be used (something like 350-300 meters or less). It is more of an issue if you get a chance to shoot and where you hit the target.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

Actually, most people would agree that the first "assault rifle" (e.g one with a low calibre round, capable of selective fire and detachable magazines) would be the Federov of 1916, which was issued in limited numbers to Russian forces during World War I.

In regards to the Kalashnikov, it may look like an STG, but its resemblance is superficial at best. In fact, its gas system has more in common with a M1 Garand, although the STG and the AK both had similar applications.

The first Assualt rifle was the Cei-Rigotti, started 1890 finished 1900. tested by the US and Italy. High misfires and jams forced it not to enter service.

By 1919 Arguably the First Assualt Rifle to enter service was the Fedorov Avtomat which used Japanese 6.5mm Arisaka because that was the easist ammunition to get it to work with (no pistol grip though).

In 1915 the french developed and put into service (over 200,000 of them) the Chauchat, this was the first automatic rifle to enter mainstream service and the BAR is a direct descendent. The Chauchat added the pistol grip idea and was a gas assit rifle, the trainging said lay down and use it like a LMG, but in service thansk to the pistol grip people did run round and use it Rambo AR style) the patent had already been registered by John browning before WW1 and Rudolf Frommer had already produced a rifle in hungary before the Chauchet went into production.

The BAR was developed in 1917 and replaced it and improved apon it. The BAR was not given out in great numbers as Allied General were worried that the germans would copy it! The BAR's 20 round mag hampered it being a LMG though. The BAR stayed in Military service till the 1990's!!!!!

While itself no longer serving on the front lines, the BAR does live on with armed forces across the world in the form of the FN MAG, or M240 Medium Machine Gun for the US forces. Mounted on humvees, tanks, helicopters, boats and even carried into battle in place of the M249 Minimi SAW, the MAG is essentially a modernized BAR with an inverted feeding mechanism that has been adapted to belt feed the 7.62 NATO. Widely praised for its reliability.

[Törni 0]

Perhaps you are confusing automatic rifles with assault rifles?

Assault rifles were designed to be a combination of SMG and rifle. (Ammo somewhere between battle rifle and pistol round).

[dirtylarrygb 0]

Perhaps you are confusing automatic rifles with assault rifles?

Assault rifles were designed to be a combination of SMG and rifle.

Well this is the issue with what was first, most of the above can be argued as Automatic Rifles, But were used as assualt rifles, eg carried around, used standing shoulder mounted. varients made the weapon lighter and smaller.

Most argue the 44 was the first "modern assualt rifle" and AK came after. Quite a few guns acted as "assualt rifles" and were used in combat before the 44 or 47.

If you say an Assualt rifle is a hip firing, 30 bullets in mag, pistol grip SMG with bigger bullets then the 44 and 47 are the first. But then the M1 could also be argued to be an assault rifle not a battle rifle. It's a carbine, has semi fire just no pistol grip or curved mag. Also the thomson SMG was firstly suppoed to fire much bigger rounds .45 was used as recoil was horendous with other rounds.

but if you look at the technology, the guns we use in ARMa are pretty similar to the stuff from WW1, difference's being we have optical sights, plastic bodies not wood, and fire selection and 30 round mags.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

The idea was a 5.56 round will injure, thus taking the wounded man, and a mate trying to help him out of the battle. A 7mm round generally kills so you kill a guy but don't take another guy out of the battle.

This was the official reason given by the MOD for the swap from the SLR to the SA80.

After the Falklands conflict it was noted althought he SLR was very good for long range battles. It was terrible for close quaters and house clearing etc. So the MOD went and got several guns designed and went with the SA80.

Moving to 5.56 mean't that our guns used the same ammo as as allies. And the reason was given that the idea was to try and wound the people hit by rounds not always kill them. As the mags were smaller so you could carry more ammo.

That "official reason" is nothing but a myth. The real

reason boils down to the fact that since the USA had

moved to 5.56mm, NATO was pressured into following

suit. It was a repeat of the reason why 7.62mm was a

NATO standard in an earlier era.

It's true that you can carry more 5.56mm ammo than

7.62mm but that wasn't a major consideration in deciding

to adopt 5.56mm. At the time the SA80 was adopted we

were told that it was more useful in house to house stuff

in NI than an SLR and official promotional bumf went out of

its way to emphasize this. Many British soldiers at the time

were dismayed to find that the SA80 weighed the same as

an SLR (and was less well balanced - never mind the other

teething problems with it). Many of us thought at the time

that a better idea would have been to adopt 'Para versions

of the FAL, which were the same length with stock folded as

an SA80 (an important consideration when in a vehicle), hit

harder, and weighed the same as an SA80.

The Falklands War experience had nothing to do with

decisions to replace the SLR. The MOD never "went out

and got several guns designed"; design work for the XL65

system was already well underway in the late 1960s, and

the first IWs were being troop trialled in the late 1970s.

And recall that the decision to adopt a modified FN FAL

in the mid-1950s in the first place was again due to the

influence of the USA. None of the British weapons were

suitable for firing 7.62mm. Several of the prototypes were

trialled but failed. Britain never wanted the SLR but the

FN FAL was considered the best available substitute at

the time. It is often opined that the USA would have adopted

the FAL too if the acceptance tests had not been biased

in favour of the M14. But for NATO pressure, Britain would

otherwise have been using bullpup self-loading rifles based

on the EM-2 design in British .280" calibre. They were

officially approved for service already in 1951!

Yep, the move to 5.56 was the US saying "yo Nato buy our guns" Nato said "sharing ammo incase of soviet invasion good idea but stick your guns we shall make our own).

Thus the Fama's, SA80, AUg etc etc etc all entered service.

Joke is I read the other day that FN FALS are either being issued or about to be issued in Afganistain because many battles are at extreme range and 5.56 sucks!

You'd think that someone would have invented a dual calibre rifle by now a G36 with two barrels and two mags or hot swap barrel and mags 5.56 for house clearing and a nice 50 cal sniper round....

With the billions and Billions psent on defense you think someone would have though of that, i want that rifle in arma LOL

[Törni 0]

Nope assault rifles are usually not used for hip firing. Full auto is almost never used. It has some uses for supression, but most of ammo is wasted. A belt-fed machine gun can do that so much better.

Army teaches under almost any situation to use aimed shots and rapid semi auto shots when a lot of fire is needed.

[Falken 0]

When us goons were playing MFCTI, a two man tank crew (me and mechastalin) in a T72B were taking out two M1A2s for each time we died.

I feel more comfortable in a T72, and I generally prefer US stuff!

[Törni 0]

Does anyone voluntarily play a machinegunner (automatic rifleman) at the moment?

[dirtylarrygb 0]

Does anyone voluntarily play a machinegunner (automatic rifleman) at the moment?

Doh yes, the SAW is the best weapon in the game thanks to tracers.

See tracers aim saw pull trigger till you don't see tracers from them anymore. Awesome vs Ai and human players.

Very good in third person view, you can lie prone in the grass, but still see a target and roll or crawl into position and waste them.

The saw in ARMA is very accurate, you can carry 5 boxes of ammo and there is no overheat (yet). Saw's can also decimate choppers and light armour, I'm sure they can take out tank tracks as well.

most of the imperfection added to the saw in Bf2,Joint op's, etc have been taken away in ARMA. The saw can even be fired standing in short bursts standing and still be very accurate.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

Nope assault rifles are usually not used for hip firing. Full auto is almost never used. It has some uses for supression, but most of ammo is wasted. A belt-fed machine gun can do that so much better.

Army teaches under almost any situation to use aimed shots and rapid semi auto shots when a lot of fire is needed.

I think general consensus is that they can be if needed, like a SMG. A battle rifle or LMG can't be used like that (Unless you believe the Rambo films).

[Kwato 0]

I often play with the M240 or the PK these days, because honestly the SAW just feels too cheap. It is just too easy really and i like a challenge.

Only time i use the SAW is when i am feeling lazy or when i play on a US server where i have 200 ping.

[dirtylarrygb 0]

I often play with the M240 or the PK these days, because honestly the SAW just feels too cheap. It is just too easy really and i like a challenge.

Only time i use the SAW is when i am feeling lazy or when i play on a US server where i have 200 ping.

I hate to say this as i love the saw but "overheat" should probably be introduced. Because one half decent player with a saw can pown an entire Ai battalion.

[Un_FriendlyFire 0]

While id love to see the minutae of military weaponry. Personally id rather that BIS worked on the feeling of nannying a squad of retards through a firefight when using the ai. if the Ai were equally competent attacking OR defending. then it would come down to the skill of the player. And nothing winds me up more than when i fail a mission due to Ai doing something stupid or when i have to run off and do the whole mission myself. Though the point was that im not rambo?

[dirtylarrygb 0]

While id love to see the minutae of military weaponry. Personally id rather that BIS worked on the feeling of nannying a squad of retards through a firefight when using the ai. if the Ai were equally competent attacking OR defending. then it would come down to the skill of the player. And nothing winds me up more than when i fail a mission due to Ai doing something stupid or when i have to run off and do the whole mission myself. Though the point was that im not rambo?

I think the best ARMA experience is playing MP with good players, the ingame AI should still be treated as used if you can't get online.

I don't think the ARMA AI's that bad at all, I've seen it do daft things. I've seen it act smart. AI opponents are as good as Average Human Players in COOP.

I would like to see more COOP style missions but with human vs human teams. I like HOLD maps but Coop is fun and if you had 3-4 humans on the AI side who could team switch around units vs a FULL human side i think the AI issues would be solved and some amazing gameplay would ensue.