scary

100m to 300m is not long range for a rifleman, in fact, 300m is a typical engagement range. Snipers typically shoot 600m to 1100m+. Machine guns are used from close range to around 1800m depending on the deployed role. Any soldier that took time to hit a target 300m away because of difficulty seeing it wouldn't pass an apwt, so wouldn't be seeing active service anyway. Engagement ranges in opf were much shorter than they would be in real life, but I guess they had to compromise to allow for the limitations of using a small screen.

The Fratellis 'Creeping Up The Backstairs' is rocktastic pop-pickers, if it doesn't make you , you're not a banana. 'The Gutterati?' is good too. There's not enough songs with harmonicas, and if you don't agree - you're wrong.

That's not really true. Guerrilla operations can be highly effective, they're certainly the only way for a civilian/resistance force to mount an offensive against an organised military. In the modern world, civilian populations have no chance of matching the firepower of a State military. Even organised militaries have use for guerilla tactics; smaller forces can use them to level the playing field against a superior enemy prior to an assault and larger forces can use them to diminish the abilities of an equally matched enemy prior to an assault. If it wasn't for Allied guerrilla operation in WW2 the D-day landings would have never taken place. The Resistance groups were guerrilla fighters, they supplied necessary intelligence and created disruptions that enabled conventional engagements. SOE/SIS operatives were guerrilla fighters; among many other things they performed guerrilla attacks on German heavy water production, without them the Nazis would have developed the A-bomb long before the Allies. Commando operations were just organised guerrilla operations, they led to Hitler's infamous Commando order. Guerrilla tactics beat the French and the Americans in Vietnam. The Cuban revolution was a guerrilla win, as were the Chinese Civil War, the Anglo-Irish War and the Seminole War. Done properly, guerrilla tactics can destroy armour before it reaches the battlefield and cause enough disruption in supply lines to force the enemy to retreat.

The fire control computer aims the barrel at the point in space it believes the target will be in when the shell reaches it. The shell itself is unguided. If a moving target changes speed or direction or a static target moves after firing the shell will hit the intended point in space but will miss the target. This isn't a problem at shorter ranges, but over distance, when there are a few seconds between a shell being fired and reaching the intended target, it is. If the target is another tank you don't want to be waiting for the range to close, as this works in both directions. Of course, this all depends on the ability of the gunner to keep the target on sight, which, even with stabilised sights is much easier from a static tank hunter than a moving tank, especially if the hunter has a remote deployable sight.

Tank hunters are smaller, lighter, faster and more maneuverable than tanks. This gives them many advantages over a tank. They can move quickly into position, and due to their small size and comparatively light weight, perhaps a position that a tank would be unable to access, use their low profile/low radar signature to hide in ambush. The tank hunter will see a tank long before the tank is capable of seeing see the tank hunter, even if the hunter isn't that well hidden. Most hunters use guided missiles as opposed to the unguided artillery shells of tanks. A tank fires at a point in space, if the target the tank is firing at moves from that point in space it misses. A hunter fires at a target, the only way for it to miss is if the target moves out of range or into the shadow of another object. If a tank fires on another tank the apfsds shell may kill the tank, it may immobilise the tank, it may knock out the turret or it may just give the crew a headache. That is if it hits it, which isn't even nearly guaranteed, especially at range. If a hunter fires at a tank, the missile/missiles will kill it. After destroying a tank the hunter can move with the speed and grace of a thousand gazelles to evade any slow and lumbering supporting tanks.

Second best. The best tank killer is a tank hunter, it's what they're made for. Tanks have a more general role.

We've got them in the UK. I think we sell them to Belgium as well. Striker. And very nice they are too.

Nope, it says PLUS! Top secret Game2 revealed! Which means there will be a review of either an ArmA demo or, hopefully, the ArmA beta, and there will be some info on Game 2 - maybe an interview or something Yes.

Surely you mean what George Bush Senior screwed up when he ended the Gulf War prematurely, despite American commanders and British politicians and commanders wishing to continue.

What it means is that considering inflation the IDF's budget is fairly static. Although I'm not really sure how this had any relevance to begin with. The Israeli leadership don't fund anything out of their own pockets, therefore, military expenditure is not a financial burden for them. Whether or not it is a financial burden for the country is a different matter. So what you are saying is that $555m of US aid, in addition to $7.3bn of Israel's own finances is spent in Israel, whilst also getting $2.7bn of free stuff from the US, some of it equipment containing Israeli components. How does that disagree with "Most Israeli procurements are from Israeli companies"? What position do you think most of Europe was in after WWII? And none of that explains why Israel receives more than all of sub-Saharan Africa combined. These are countries with less money, more violence, more refugees, higher unemployment and higher poverty than Israel. I don't think Chad has much of a tourist industry. And 44 per capita, which is a much better indicator of relative wealth. 8.9% according to the CIA. Not that it is important. Where did I say they were financial contributors to anything? I'll assume you completely missed the point and try again. Israel pays it's drafted youths. Israel's drafted youths spend their wages in Israel, just like the tax paying, money spending reservists and employers. The money being spent on them is not leaving the country. If they weren't in the IDF then they would mostly be unemployed and would need some form of sustenance. They are neither contributors nor detractors from the Israeli economy. If permanently employed IDF personnel are being laid off, it begs the question, why does Israel still have conscription? It is widely acknowledged that conscripts are less effective, and therefore less cost-effective, than volunteers. Do you speak for everyone? I was unaware of a hive mind. In 1999 it was $8.7bn, in 2003 $9.1bn and in 2006 $9.5. Taking into account inflation, it's fairly static. I suggest you read more than just the table. From your own source: "First of all it must be clear that the overall cutback is a reduction in the budget increase, and not an actual reduction compared with last year" The politicians at the top on both sides will do whatever is necessary to stay at the top, including dragging out this conflict. If you wish to defend the Palestinian leadership, go ahead, (unless you wish to appear partisan) they're a sack of camels arse too.

I never mentioned Israel as a country; individuals are corrupt not countries. But if you wish to do some maths: US aid to Israel in 1967 (prior to the six days war) $24m, by 1971 it was $634m and in 1974 it hit $2.5bn, this was also the first year Israel received a grant rather than just a loan. Since 1985 Israel has only received 2 loans, all other aid has been grants. Odd situation when you consider that Israel's position was much more precarious prior to 1967. Click for a handy table of US aid. Additional notice should be taken of the statement at the bottom: "Loan guarantees are not considered foreign aid so the $7.9 billion in guarantees have been excluded from this table. This table also excludes funding for certain other projects the CRS does not consider foreign aid, such as the $180 million for the research and development of the Arrow missile." That's a lot of aid for the 44th richest country, in fact more aid than the US gives to the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. Most countries that receive US military aid do so under the proviso that procurements are made from the US, this isn't the case for Israel. Most Israeli procurements are from Israeli companies, of which, three of the largest are wholly owned by the Israeli government. Exports of military equipment and civilian application of military technology are Israel's largest single source of income. The result is a net gain to Israeli coffers. Military expenditure doesn't actually disappear into the ether; every Shekel spent goes somewhere. The IDF don't do a lot of globe trotting, therefore, Israeli military personnel spend their incomes in Israel. Israeli unemployment stands at 9%, any reduction in IDF personnel levels would just serve to increase unemployment levels. The cost of military personnel to the Israeli government in real terms is roughly 0. Out of an initial expenditure of $9.5 (16th in the world, and a long way behind the big military spenders) the Israeli government receives $2.5bn in aid from the US, spends most of it's budget on it's own companies and then sells military technology abroad. Not really the major financial burden you think it is. My claim isn't mythical; I definitely made it. And it does make sense. As a percentage of GDP, that is true. As a dollar value, it isn't. Feel free to prove it.

There is no right or wrong side in the Israel/Palestine conflict, both are as bad as each other. Any dubious statistics of one sides wrong-doings can be countered with more dubious statistics of the others wrong-doings, ad infinitum. It's a self-perpetuating conflict, initiated by post-war British protectionism, funded by American political ambition and enacted by the people at the top of the Israeli and Palestinian political trees. The Israeli leadership need the fighting to continue because no fighting means no US tax dollars. The Palestinian leadership need the fighting to continue in order to keep control, and therefore ownership, of Palestine's limited finances. Both parties flood their respective voting populi with spurious propaganda telling them how evil the other side is and how righteous they are, both voting populi suck it all up and keep them in power. If either of the US parties threatened to pull Israeli funding they would lose Jewish and pro-Israeli votes and wouldn't stand a chance in an election. So long as there are people with a vested interest in the conflict continuing, the conflict will continue. The only way for it to end is by the voting masses on both sides saying they've had enough and voting in new people, people without the vested interest. Both sides need to do the world a favour, and grow up. Who's going to be the first to say 'they started it'? You know you want to.

Yes, isohypse = contour lines. The military generally use the best maps available for the area of operations, eg. OS maps in the UK, IGN maps in France, Landesreallylongword maps in Germany; the same maps that outdoorsy people use. If suitable maps aren't available then there are military cartographers, but whatever maps are being used topographical data would always be included, it is tactically extremely important. For more realism though, mils should be used to measure angle rather than degrees, all military operations should occur on the juncture of two or more maps, and Officers should never be allowed to use them.

SAW/Minimi, M60/M240/GPMG: standard combat load is 4 ball, 1 tracer (or 4 AP, 1 tracer or, when required, all API). When you're engaging targets 500m to 1,500m away it's useful to see where your shots are landing. Optics are primarily for single shot usage not auto fire; tracer is no use in single shot or burst, it is for walking the shot onto target. Tanks', APC's, AFV's coax and machine guns use tracers as do aircraft cannons/coax/machine guns. If you're using tracer properly there should be no enemy left in a position to return fire. Tracer is a good thing.

Please, no silly weapons; no garottes, no bludgeons, no ninja pogo sticks, no sharks with frickin' laser beams. Bayonets would be nice though, they are a standard issue weapon and their omission from ofp is a bit of an oversight. With them you'd also get the added bonus of wire cutting, good for a bit of sneaky beaky infil; much more sensible than presenting yourself to the guards at the front gate.