maniac86

Wrong again my friend, the vests theme selves (including the bicep, throat and groin protection (the simple layered Kevlar) are meant for stopping small shrapnel and pistol rounds, the PLATES that go into the armor (front, back, left and right side) are rated to stop rifle rounds, upto and including 7.62, in fact I distinctly remember getting my plates at Ft. Benning while leaving for Iraq and they are spray painted in the inside "ARMY SAPI PLATE BACK 7.62" and the front actually said "ARMY SAPI PLATE SIDE MEDIUM STRIKE FACE" and the plates are made to resist as much as three rapid 7.62 impacts, dont listen to the news when they act like we fight in Iraq with 40 year old equipment. No "bullet proof" vest is rifle proof, its the plates that go inside that do that job. And when it comes down to it, body armor cant get much bulkier, its already limiting movement to the point where any more tradeoffs on mobility are not worth the protection, personally I never wore my right SAPI plate or shoulder protector (I shoot right handed, so aiming, most of my left side would be exposed) instead I opted for a "stock holder" which is basically just a 7 x 3 inch textured rubber piece that you can seat your rifle but against to make sure it doesn't slide off (a surprising problem with larger body armor) Also Kevlar helmets can again, stop pistol rounds, light shrapnel, but are not officially rated to stop a rifle round (though i have seen many test videos of them stopping or bouncing bullets, its not to the MILSPEC that is required to be rifle proof rated.

The CH-46 Sea Knight looks similar to the CH-47 (in that they both have a double rotary system) But Im pretty sure the CH-47 (Ive been on one, as opposed to a CH-46) is bigger and actually faster, with a more powerful engine. The USMC plans on retiring the CH-46 once the V-22 is fielded in all units, and the navy already dropped CH-46s from its inventroy in favor of the '60 varient, KnightHawk (not sea hawk, which I believe is a little older varient)

.... Every manned aircraft (ones worth saving) not to say that UAV's are cheap, but lets be realistic, its not worth the extra weight and money to put such a system on a UAV so small that it barely gives off a radar blip or heat signature And yes, I did mean BAE lol, I always do that (like DynCorp and Dyna Corp international, all government contractors, but different companies with differnt purposes) Anyway, the '144 "disco ball" systems (I believe the most effective varient is on the AH-64) does have a big downside, it has to be "programmed" with the most common threats in the area (Iraq for example would be SA7 and 14 most commonlly) Because if it isnt set for the exact threat, it will actually give a 'false' heat signature that other missiles can track on. Most commonally for Army aircarft, and probably Marine Rotary wing as well (cant speak for fixed wing or VTOL) use the infared sensors and 3 flare cocktail mix (wheras c-130's fire off a rediculous amount) The funny thing(but sometimes dangerous) about it all is that on the old systems (2003-2006ish) the system would get false indicators, for example, an acetylne torch burns at about the same temperature as a MANPADS booster engine, giving a false indication, making the aircraft shoot off flares, some areas with high radio interference used to do the same thing. The downside is that imagine flying at night over an urban area, suddenly a workshop wielding torch sets off your flares, now every insurgent for several miles knows an aircraft is in the area and starts popping off rounds in your general direction, its enough to endanger a craft and its crew.

YES! I was waiting for a thread like this to start,to flex my military knowledge muscle (I worked as an analyst in an Aviation unit with the Army and B&E Systems in Iraq (They design our flare countermeasure systems) Wrong, you are correct the seeker is passive, but once the missile launches it is detected and the aircraft automatically dispeneses the flare "cocktail" which for most aircraft is 2 sets (left and right side) of three flares (low, mid and high spectrum heat) The missile should then concienvablly track (not lock, heat seekers do not LOCK, that is radar) on the nearest or hottest (in the case of old SA7A or SA7B models) flare. The newer SA series MANPADS (18, 24) have CCIRCM (Counter Counter IRR Counter Measures) meaning that they are "smart" warheads that can use a microprocessor to record the actual heat signature of the target it initially launched at, and then it can detect the three flares, the specific heat signature, and it knows whether or not to ignore. Essentially the modern aircrafts in the U.S. military have IR seekers that detect a certain heat range (this range is isolated to pick up the average heat of the sustained burn stage of a MANPADS) This has nothing to do with radar, and the launch itself isnt what is picked up (MANPADS which are always "plural" btw MANPortableAirDefenceSystems) ---------- Post added at 05:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ---------- Also incorrect, remember, a MANPADS launched at the front of an aircaft (front 90 degrees) will have almose zero heat signature to track on. Therfore will be a probable miss regardless. The heat sensors (simple terms) are placed below and the rear traditionally, but can generally detect the heat sources 360 degrees from the belly of the aircraft (or at least 180 if placed more to the sides) Every American military aircraft in Iraq has an IR/Flare dispensing mechanism. And yes the IR jammers will not be as effective against the newest series of MANPADS (SA-24's) but those are also in limited quanities, and as of yet, Russia has not exported them (i think they fear the irony of them falling back in sepratist hands like Cechnya, or even bought out by Georgia :-) )

Good Call buddy, worked for me too, ironically enough I pulled the latest directX off the microsoft website and that didnt work, I recommend starting another thread along the lines of "ArmA2 Sound problem fixed" I might put on in the steam forums (and credit you of course :-) )

Ran the installer that was in the link, that unfortunately did not work either, thanks for trying though :-)

I am in the same boat my friend, i have updated all my drivers (Video, Motherboard, Sound and DirectX) still a no go. But it seems that the only answer people can give it update your drivers, and since I know that isnt the issue this better be addressed when I get my retail copy tomorrow

I have the same exact problem, no sound whatsoever (and yes my speakers are on and plugged in, I can even run a music file or a movie, no problems except for demo!) BTW I got it through steam as well, downloading normal ZIP file from fileplanet, will update tonight to see if there is a diff. I also noticed that while the game looks great, in the player creation screen, all the textures are missing for the glasses (ie: sunglasses and such are white or bright yellow solid color) Please address this issue, I will refuse to play the greatness that is Arma II unless I also get the excellent sound that they seem to have put in this game (cant wait to hear that doppler effect with fast moving vehicles!) Vista 64bit, 6gigs DDR3 memory. Geforece 8800GT 512MB ram, Intel 2 Quad Core @ 2.5 GZ

Yeah going along with NodUnit here, when i was Iraq, I worked with several aviation units, both Army Fixed and Rotary wing, my own Major was an Apache pilot (full filling his staff position slot to make LT COL.) anyway, according to him, in Iraq, the older pre-Delta (Longbow) Apaches are preferred, they have less of the new electronic systems (which have no use in Asymmetrical warfare) and therefore are lighter, more maneuverable, can carry more ammo an fuel, in addition to having higher heat/dust tolerances (though against Russian armoed units I guess i would want a Delta model Longbow too! (Block III if possible, they have integrated UAV control systems) The big thing that makes AH-64 D models so special is enhanced fire control for missile systems, and the ability to pass on targeting info to other Apaches who may not have LOS on target. In addition to enhanced radar systems