sgtdwetzel

The biggest arguement I have is the way that Jengo dies. When he fights Obi-Wan in space and on the ground, he fights the way a merc would fight - with everything he has, and fighting to win. When he gets cut down by Mace - all he does is stand there like a deer in the headlights. You would think that a merc would realize that he was in a losing position, and GET THE HELL OUTTA THERE..... I do like the way that he portrayed the Jedi....not invincible, just very VERY good at what they do - and some better at it than others.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ May 09 2002,21:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tank gunners are not known to be very bright <span id='postcolor'> I gotta take offense to this......some of us CDAT's aren't anywhere NEAR as dim as some of those 11Bulletstoppers j/k.....about the bulletstopper part at least LOL

Not really a secret what US soldiers make(easy to find on the web), so here's what I get: BASE PAY(E6 over 10 years): $2337.30 BAS(food allowance): $ 262.50 BAH(housing): $630.60 Plus a clothing allowance every year of around $400 Best part is the only taxable income is the base pay - the BAH and BAS are compensations due to the fact there is no housing or mess hall at my duty station

Yea...thats why I like to no Force duels LOL I get sick and tired of trying to get a good duel going(especially in the FFA servers).....and have someone do that to me....just seems a little cheap to me

OK..how about 1 - new netcode(PLEASE !!!!!!! 2 - main gun stabilization on the tanks 3 - new maps 4 - smoke grenades for the M203 I'll think of more later, I'm sure

Uther(sp?) Pendragon - father of King Arthur

Try multiplayer....key to the sabre only, no Force power duels. Almost pulled me away from OFP

I can't comment on the vest(we use LBE)...and as a tanker, the first thing we do is take off the LBE when we climb on the vehicle The LBV looks a little limiting compared to the LBE....if you are wearing your flak jacket and rucksack, how are you supposed to access any equipment?? With the LBE, everything is pretty much accessible on the belt and shoulder straps. I can see the advantage of the vest being to spread the weight better - but if you wear the LBE correctly, all the weight is on your shoulders anyway.... Same as a tanker - we go into combat wearing a spall vest, balaclava, nomex, cooling vest, and shoulder hoster. There's not enough room in the tank to wear all that crap the way it is....and they want to add another vest on top of it all???

2 rebuttals..... Wobble - it's not the gun smoke that blinds the crew - its the dirt/ground lifting from the compression of the main gun firing. If you want to be more realistic, you would have so much dust that framerates would drop to nothing. advocatexxx - IMHO, the tank speed is too SLOW. I have been in M1A1 Heavy's(68 tons) that have been able to do close to 50mph. The governors are not electronic - they are mechanical. You get good hull mechanics that know what they are doing....you can pretty much go as fast as you want. The uphill speed is WAY too slow also. Yes, a 60 degree grade slows it to a crawl, but it seems that BIS modeled the M1 performance after a truck - you take the slightest grade, and you slow down. Doesn't happen that way...

How did you get Satchels' mod to work with 1.46 I have had to re-install twice after trying to get it to work....

How did you get Satchels' mod to work with 1.46 I have had to re-install twice after trying to get it to work....

Congrats 11B....stick with it. I still wonder if I should have gone your route instead of the one that I took. Thought about SF and all the hoowah stuff when I came in....and became a CDAT instead LOL 11+ years on tanks = hundreds of scars on hands/elbows/knees/head, 3 knee surgeries, bad back.....but it's still fun Nothing beats the feeling of that 120mm....anything I can see within 4000m is TOAST Just gotta bust balls for a sec tho..........HEY CRUNCHIE...GET OUTTA THE WAY !!!! LOL

All Soviet-built tanks since the T-62 have been auto loader. The 2 big drawbacks are that if your mechanical loader goes "tits up", manual reloading is VERY slow....and the fact that you only have a 3 man crew. Ether - you are right on the spot about the breech having to be in a specific position to re-load, but that is an automatic process. It is very similar to what is on the Abrams - "elevation uncouple". What happens is after the round is fired, and the main gun is placed on safe, the gun is brought to 0 elevation to make it easier for the loader to reload. While this is going on, the ballistic computer still keeps the gunner's sights on the target. He is still able to lase and track targets, but cannot fire. After the main gun is reloaded and armed, the gun returns to match the sights. This takes place only in "normal" mode (where the gun is slaved to the sights). As for the Soviet system, I imagine it is something very similar. Personally - I would MUCH rather have a human loader. #1 - you can beat him when he screws up #2 - you have 4 bodies for maintanence, not 3 #3 - malfunctions are not a possibility One of the reasons that the Block III was never really considered as a replacement for the M1 was the fact that a 2 man crew could never handle the maintenance aspect of a combat tracked vehicle.

Its what I am...SGT D Wetzel

Panzer Jaeger..... I'm just curious about where you get your information.....specifically about the M1A2 having an autoloader. Funny......the M1A2's I have been on have the normal Western style of a 4 man crew...just like the M1A1, M1IP, and slick M1's I have been on...... Good info on the use of DU....that is the other reason why we use DU besides cost.....Tungsten is a HELL of a lot more expensive than spent nuclear fuel... Not bustin you on the 3 man crew thing....just clarifying...

Panzer Jaeger..... I'm just curious about where you get your information.....specifically about the M1A2 having an autoloader. Funny......the M1A2's I have been on have the normal Western style of a 4 man crew...just like the M1A1, M1IP, and slick M1's I have been on...... Good info on the use of DU....that is the other reason why we use DU besides cost.....Tungsten is a HELL of a lot more expensive than spent nuclear fuel... Not bustin you on the 3 man crew thing....just clarifying...

wobble...I'll give ya a "high five" on Steel Beasts, especially on the graphics....they could be better. The got everything pretty much spot-on about the Abrams....even down to the different sounds from going to 3x and 10x....and even the turret brake. Its real enough that our armor company uses it as a "pre-gunnery" training device. It is sometimes hard to get a full crew into the AFIST simulator, so we use Steel Beasts routed through an old set of Cadillacs to get our gunners "trigger time"

It's virtually useless against tanks because thats what it is in real life....pretty much useless against tanks. A 66mm HEAT round is not going to do much against a tank, unless it is a rear or track hit....and in either case you are NOT going to get a crew compartment penetration, so all you did was piss off the crew...and told them where you are. If you want realism....the LAW is a disposable, one-shot-done weapon...it is not reloadable. Use the LAW the way it is really used....against lightly aromored vehicles (Gaz, Ural, BMP rear shot) and defended positions (sniper in tower, sand bag fortification, etc)

I hate to tell you....the Geneva Convention does not ban .50 cal machine gun fire against unarmored targets. On our table VIII (our crew gunnery qualification table), one of the engagements is for the tank commander to engage a dismounted RPG team with the 50 cal. Did you also know that the only ban against firing at parachuting personnel is that you cannot fire on someone bailing out of a disabled aircraft - that is why their parachutes are a different color from paratroopers. BUT - exception to that rule - if that airman pulls his weapon and fires at you while he is still dropping...OPEN SEASON ON HIM also...3 reasons why we used DU rounds... 1 - CHEAP...it's spent nuclear fuel, which we have a lot of 2 - MASS...more mass flying at the same speed = more energy to hit the target with 3 - Frangibility - this is a little long. When the penetrator hits the target, the pointed end doesn't "mushroom" like most metals...what actually happens is that it fractures at acute angles to the target. In other words...the pencil sharpens itself...it ensures that a smaller surface area is attempting to penetrate the target

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FetishFool @ Jan. 21 2002,08:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Most of the new US tanks in development are made from tree products. The "armor" will be forms of paper. The Abrams tank is going to be obsolete in the US in less than 3 years. The US just doesn't have enough soldiers to man the tanks. The US always got 10% of the population to join the army every year. Â Now only 80,000 or so are expected each year. That means that 4-man crews are unrealistic. And the US doesn't always make the best stuff. The AK74 is better than the M16A2 in every way except one. The M16A2 is a lot easier to hold. Â The AK74 is awkwardly shaped, and has a clip that extends to the soldier's waste-line. The T80U was the best tank in the world until 1990. Â Then Russia went bankrupt. The M1A2 Abrams was only the best tank in the world for 2 years. Â Then the Challenger2 was considered the best. Then the Leopard2 took over recently, but only because it was perfectly balanced.<span id='postcolor'> Obsolete in less than 3 years? Considering that the M1A1 Digital is extending main gun range to 7500 meters, and it is still the fastest, most stable gun platform on the battlefield...I think the M1 series will be around a while. That LAV based vehicle is going to be used mainly in the Interim Brigade Combat Team concept....which is a STOPGAP measure until heavier forces arrive. They tried to say the same thing when the Bradley came out - "The MBT is dead...long live the Bradley" but the fact of the matter is neither the Bradley or the up-armored LAV can take any kind of direct fire and survive. The M1 series can. You should check your numbers again....if 10% of the US population joined the Army, we would have 25 million people joining every year. And 4 man crews unrealistic??? I hate to tell you...armor crewmen in the US Army right now are OVERSTRENGTH...we don't have enough tanks for the personnel we have right now. About the M16A2....I can't comment on that - I carry my M9 Beretta on the tank, but I would like to see your reasoning - I have fired both weapons, and except for the AK's ability to be covered in mud and still be able to fire, they are fairly evenly matched. The T-80U "best tank in the world"?? What are you smoking? Can I have some? Flame me all you want - I have been a "tanker" for over 11 years as a loader, driver, gunner, and tank commander, and have been in Soviet, British, and German equipment, and have seen how they work - and how they don't. T80U the best.....know what you are talking about before you "inform" us of your un-enlightened opinions

You DEFINATELY need to bring that to E-bay's attention. If memory serves, that is part of the seller's agreement not to push bids. They can research that by e-mail addresses, and they will pull that idiot's account.

NICE PICS....just one caveat (a small one) In the last pic....its kinda hard to shoot with a BFA and a MILES transmitter attached :-) But cool pics nonetheless....

LMAO !!!! What the h*ll is: Beretta model 92FS is a civilian version - military is the 92F What the heck is a T-84 tank? Unless the entire US Army has been training COMPLETELY wrong for the past 11 years.... C'mon....at least make the bullsh*t a little bit more believable

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Crispy129 on 6:55 am on Dec. 28, 2001 5) Â Bigger, more visible, and thus more realistic muzzle flashes. 6) Better water(the abilityto swim under water and ses little bubble trails behind bullets taht get shot into the water( know you can do it on your engine, theres always a way around it) 8) Â Air-to-air missles and SAM missles for both teams(don't forget proximity detonation), and planes with coutner measures, radar warnings, and missle launch warnings. Â Also, if you include countermeasures, make sure the flares and caff don't work on stingers, because they don't. 9) Â Area damage effect on planes so you can aim and damae certain areas and components on the planes. Â Also maybe you could add smoking enginge damage effects. 13) Â Let all of the people cary more equipment and ammo. Â I know I can carry a gun, 6 grenades, and 10 clips, but they highly trained soldiers and black ps can't. Â #### the SEAL SAW gunners cary 5000-6000 rounds, and the regular troops come close to carrying that much also. 14) Â Give the Abrams the JTIDS map, the commander-gunner target designator, and the laser range finder. 18) Â Maybe FLIR goggles(yeah I know its, 1985, but they were pretty close to having it and had some prototypes, and they would be a very good improvement over the light amplification w/o even an IR illuminator crap that is in the game now. Thanks, Crispy <span id='postcolor'> Now, I just quoted the ones that I disagree with...the others are very valid points. 5 - I hate to tell you, but they have it about right. We don't use muzzleloaders anymore....the flash is good. 6 - It sounds like you just got done watching the D-Day assault is "Saving Private Ryan". You're going to swim with 100-150 lbs of equipment on??? 8 - This isn't Falcon 4.0...and I hate to tell you...Stingers are IR guided, so flares properly utilized are an effective countermeasure 9 - I agree with the smoking engine, but aim for a specific area on the plane?? You are going to target an object hundreds of meters away moving at hundreds of kilometers an hour, and aim for a specific spot? 13 - This is the funniest post I have seen.....carry 6000 rounds? 1 box of NATO 5.56 ammo(linked machine gun ammo) weighs about 25 pounds...and that is only 400 rounds. SO....that SEAL is going to haul around 375 pounds in combat??? Not to mention the SAW itself(approx 40 more pounds)? ROFLMAO 14 - A close ditto on #8 above....this isn't Steel Beasts or M1 Tank Platoon 2....besides, the CITV (what the TC uses to designate targets) wasn't even really around until 1996 or later... 18 - That light amplification/IR illumination "crap" is still used today by 99% of regular Army units....it's actual designation is the AN/PVS 7B....called "nogs" for short. Good to about 200-250 m....which the game got pretty close too also. Not trying to tear you completely down...you did have some very valid points...but 6000 rounds??? I'm still laughing about that one :-)

Only problem is....you don't use brush to camo vehicles in real life. Only camo really used is netting; and that isnt very good. Only when you are in a stationary position for any length of time.