-Snafu-

Yeah that would be fine. Cheers.

Any other link for this? Filefront absolutely refuses to work for me.

Of course the L85 wasn't perfect when it first entered service, nothing is. When the AR-15 was first issued it was truly awful, it has taken over 40 years to get to where it is now and the two standard variants combined perform less well than the single L85A2 that has only gone through one major upgrade even though the AR-15 has gone through many. At the strategic level, being self-supporting is hugely important. Being reliant on a foreign manufacturer isn't a good thing when you have a tiff with that country. We don't know who our friends will be next week, never mind in the next decade. No we are not. At the moment we are choosing to co-operate with other countries with certain items for financial, political and other reasons. However, we retain the capacity and capability to manufacture those items on our own if necessary. No more than we could stop them. Why not? It has never stopped us before. BAe's overseas business is because they are buying other companies out, not because work is being transfered abroad, even then, it's profits make themselves noticed in the UK. Around 1 million jobs in the UK are involved in defence, it is our largest area of manufacturing and accounts for a substantial part of our GDP. BAe isn't the only company that gets to play in the UK's military theme park, anyway. Many of these things are interlinked. Dividing lines are blurred. That would be preparing for tomorrow's wars, which is what we do. Fight today's war, prepare for tomorrow. Also, much of this equipment does have uses in today's arenas. Lots of myths in here I'm afraid. For starters, Eurofighter is the company, Typhoon is the aircraft. The Typhoon has worked out to cost on par with other similar aircraft. The reasons its cost grew are down to the Germans moving the goalposts on an almost daily basis, and to a lesser extent, the Spanish who are also responsible for some of the delays (which are minor in the grand scheme of things, if necessary it could have been brought in service more quickly). Now for the major mythbusting. The RAF always required the Typhoon to be swing role, they were alone in the partner nations for this requirement as the intention was for it to also replace Jaguar. From the very beginning of its development it was required to have a ground attack capability on par with its fighter capability. More money need not have gone on ground attack jets because it is a ground attack jet. More money was not forked out for a CAS version, CAS development just happened to be after fighter development for whatever reason the shiny arsed air jockeys decided. Block 5 planes are coming with all the capabilities as standard, the older planes will be upgraded incrementally. This type of spiral development has been standard for many years because of the complexities of modern avionics and systems software. The RAF bought some of the excess planes that the Germans reneged on as it was financially expedient to do so. It kept the per-unit cost down, eliminated (a very large) cancelation penalty and means the RAF has all of the aircraft it requires for its service life which is cheaper than replacing them as they wear out/crash into welsh hills/get hit by nasty men. What we have, if you ask any FAC that has been training with them, is the best CAS asset on the planet - which is a good thing. The fact that the Merlins have an anti-submarine role is neither here nor there. All large ships carry a helicopter for various roles one of which is ASuW. The additional cost of equipping them for ASuW is negligable and it is mush better to have and not need than need and not have. Merlin is that good a helicopter that POTUS is replacing his Marine 1 fleet with them. I don't know where you've got this idea that submarines are good at destroying other submarines, they're not, they are good at sinking skimmers and a few other tasks, but ASuW is not one of those. The RN knows how to conduct maritime warfare, it's been doing it succesfully for nearly 1,500 years and even took over the world for some time. Subs are sandwiches, incidentally, submarines are boats. Capital ships without protection are just big targets. Without a DD/FF screen, any enemy would just put you and all your equipment at the bottom of the oggin before you became a threat. Big floaty tin boxes are relatively cheap, stuff for sinking big floaty tin boxes is even cheaper, defending big floaty tin boxes is where the cost comes in. DD/FF are the Naval fleet's body armour. What you are essentially saying is that we should stop protecting sailors because soldiers are more important. If we did that, Terry Taliban and Alvin Qaeda and their friends would turn their attention to cutting off the logistics tail of the coalition. Wars are won primarily with logistics and intelligence, the RN are the main providers of both. Without them any ground force would be unarmed and blind. Iraq - Initial invasion was amphibious. Amphibious operations don't happen without naval bombardment. DD/FF screen prevented Iraq from putting LPD's, CVS, etc. with all their warfighting equipment in Neptune's icy hands. Currently provide Comms relay, SIGINT/COMMINT etc., protect vital oil platforms from attack (which have been attempted), provide an open seaway for the delivery of essential supplies. If an emergency evacuation is required, ensure that ground forces don't have to swim home. Afghanistan - See Iraq apart from amphib. landing. Sierra Leone - Provided fleet protection for HMS Invincible and HMS Ocean. HMS Norfolk landed the rescue party for President Kabbah. Numerous missile locks were recorded on the fleet in addition to receiving small arms fire. Kosovo - Provided fleet protection for both the RN and the Charles de Gaulle carrier group. HMS Argus was used as a casualty reception facility. East Timor - Provided vanguard for INTERFET. Provided the SBS troop that led the landings. How well would the Falklands have gone without the RN? Type 23s use towed arrays that don't give away the position of the vessel and search much larger areas of the ocean than the dipping sonar on a helicopter can. The Type 23 is the best ASuW platform currently available. Helicopters and aircraft cannot do the job better, they are complimentary and alone are easily defended against. The RN bought more frigates in the 90s because it cannot operate with 50 year old vessels. The RN currently has 17 frigates, in 2005 there were 19, in 2000 there were 21, in 1990 there were 35, in 1980 there were 53 and in 1960 there were 84. I think there may be a pattern in there that suggests your supposition of the RN being obsessed with frigates is somewhat wide of the mark. There is a simple equation to all this: the Royal Navy needs ships, the Army needs men, and the RAF needs planes. Sniping at any one of them to attempt to improve another is detrimental to the whole. Nice post, countered my arguments with points backed up by evidence and good explanation (and a bit of cheeky humour). Like I said in the Iraq thread I will look up those couple books you mentioned. Although suspect L, D and D at least gave me an insight into defence procurement. Indeed there has been some cock-up's but it is not in a dire situation. However I think that money should be saved somewhere (no un-necessary cuts though) and the soldiers should get a pay rise. Would this actually be possible? I would, if you don't mind answering, like to ask you Scary what you think of the situation with Officers. Is it true that each force has more officers than they need? And that some surplus officers are being put in 'pointless' desk jobs? @ Baff1 I was simply asking if he was a Sun reader as that is the type of rants  The Sun comes out with. Biased arguments that put Murdoch's political agenda across. Im not saying theres anything wrong with reading The Sun and did not put him down for reading it or mean to anyway. And no I don't read The Beano but I do read The Broons and Oor Wullie!

Was this released? I searched on ofp.info but it didn't turn up. http://ofp.gamepark.cz/_hosted/orcs/downloads/icp_bmp.rar Thanks.

Page's book is about as well researched as the part of the map that says 'here be dragons'. The man is a bitter and twisted passed over former MCDO that has never been to sea on anything other that a minesweeper. He has no experience of frigates, destroyers or capital ships and a very limited view of RN operations, never mind land and air ops. He left on a low note after being told he would have to serve on larger vessels if he ever wanted promotion. After 11 years in the Andrew he was a Lieutenant and he has a chip on his shoulder the size of Ayers Rock because of it. What exactly is it the fighting forces don't have? Let's look at the blurb on the back of his book: WHY are British Soldiers sent off to war to put their lives at risk, with some of the worst guns around? What worst guns would they be? All of the British Armed Forces guns are amongst the most highly rated in the world, some are the most highly rated. And what the toss would a Clearance Diver Junior Officer know about guns anyway? WHY are decisions being made by the MoD with an eye above all for the interests of British Aerospace? The strategic importance of maintaining high tech defence manufacturing capability. The cost effectiveness when business taxes and employee taxes are taken into account. Keeping people off the dole queue. The fact that they can and do make some bloody good equipment. There is a reason that the UK is the world's third largest defence manufacturer. WHY are we still fighting yesterday's wars? Err, what? Yesterday's Wars? Are we waiting for the 3rd Shock Army? Are we manning the trenches at Ypres? Are we giving the French yet another damn good thrashing? No. WHY is our tax money being wasted on useless, insanely expensive toys? What useless, insanely expensive toys would they be then? There aren't many things in HM's trainset that haven't been used in the last 5 years. The RN hasn't ordered a frigate since 1996. And I do seem to remember them being used in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Kosovo and East Timor since then, not to mention the evacuation of British Citizens from Lebanon and various other instance of humanitarian assistance. Far from useless. Force protection, guarding oil platforms in the Gulf, SIGINT, keeping the logistics route open, providing a safe HQ, emergency force extraction and they had a rather important part to play in the initial invasion. They also have to do all the things they did before the low intensity urban conflicts and be ready for all the things they may have to do in the future. Huh? The RN is the world leader in ASuW. The primary role of the RN in NATO is ASW and MW/MCM. All FFs are equiped with Sting Ray and have the best detection equipment available. Factually correct ones? Indeed there is, but not by using that book. I would suggest he doesn't. If the paper was more absorbant he would possibly find it useful, but as it is the author has zero understanding of the tri-service environment and very little understanding of the single-service one. Junior diving Officers on minesweepers also tend not to have much involvement with the procurement process. In reality, British defence procurement, whilst certainly having problems, is the most open in the western world. If you want to see real procurement blundering, look at the US or France. In essence, L,D & D amounts to 'British manufacturing is bad, buying American will solve all procurement woes.' He is under the impression that large scale procurement is akin to nipping to the shops for a new washing machine. It is an ill-informed rant that may make for good soundbites on Sky News, but offers no real substance or even anything new. If you want some genuine insight, try Bill Kincaid's 'A Dinosaur in Whitehall' or 'Dancing With the Dinosaurs'. Typhoon is being deployed for CAS in Afghanistan shortly, JSF are doing a dandy job right now. While the RAF may be Brylcream wearing crustaceans liable to throw a hissy fit if they're in anything less than a four star hotel, they are very good at CAS. Right the guns. The L85 wasn't perfect when it came out. Lot's of problems were reported and it took 15 years for the next variant to be put in service. I take it your talking about 'appropriate sovereignty' here. This is the governments excuse to keep feeding BAE huge amounts of cash. What they mean is to be able to fight without reliance on foriegn defence manufacturers. However the theory does not work in reality. We are still dependent on other countries for our aircraft etc. to operate. America could really stop us going to war if they wanted to. And if a lot of countries don't want us going to war then it is probable we shouldn't. Giving BAE money may give some jobs in the UK but not a lot. Most of BAE's business is now overseas anyway so it doesn't do much good. And last of all defence money is for defence. There is an entire other government dept. dedicated to employment. Yesterday's wars. What he means by that is the MoD are still buying equipment for fighting a conventional war. Same goes for army organisation. What the hell do we need 100-200 eurofighters for? Do the terrorists have fighters of their own? No. That money should have went to buying helicopters or gorund attack jets. Not to mention that the eurofighter was incredibly expensive and very late. More money was forked out for a cas version. Remember when it had 2000 attached to it's name? The year 2000 has been and past and there was no eurofighter in service at that time. Oops, bet that was someone's career over. Expensive toys. Eurofighter's in which quite a few are going to be mothballed - not enough pilots to fly all of them - even the RAF don't want all of the eurofighters that have been bought and then more money is needed from us to develop a CAS version, Anti-submarine Merlins that probably are not going to see much use and the frigates. Useless for fighting subs, vulnerable to aircraft and expensive. If you want to destroy a sub use another sub or an aircraft. Very cost effective methods. But we don't need all these traditional ships that the navy loves. If you could show any examples of what action they were in in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Kosovo and East Timor I would appreciate it. Something like HMS Ocean or an aircraft carrier would have been better for humanitarian assistance than a frigate. The type 23 frigate only has the ability to find a quiet submereged submarine. To listen to the echoes the ship must be travelling slowly. The sound pulses from the sonar also give the ships position away to the sub bfore the ship can find the sub. So why did we keep buying the 23's in the 1990's? The frigates also have a anti-sub chopper on them which does the anti-sub job better than the 23 can. In 2006 six of the 23's are going to be fitted with sonar 2087 however it is questionable if these are going to do as their advertised - by spotting the sub before the sub can sink it. 2087 is costing about 30 million quid for each 23. Moreover the rest of them are going to be left with the old sonar. Why bother when helicopters and aircraft can do the job better? Edit: Actually, sod it, I give up. I've dragged this thread off topic now. Thanks for the recommended books Scary. I'll be ordering them once I get some pay.

i think however alot of soldiers would also agree with Baff1. Â The armys shape is not brilliant, but its also not as bad as the major newspapers like to make out. Â Everyones open to there view, theres no point arguing on a forum, and there is especially no point in petty insults (in my view theres no such thing as a fool with a vote, Â only fools who dont use votes), your point is valid, as is his. Â anyway i wanted to talk a little on Turkey. Â Personally i think there perfectly entitled to protect there borders, Â afterall they are definatly facing 'terrorists' or itleast gurilla style fighters. Â However i also think if Turkey want to actually solve this problem they need to start treating the kurds a hell of alot better. Â Whats your guys take? Agree? With what? The mission being a success? Britain earning money out of it? I doubt it. After all they are still there in the line of fire, pretty sure they don't want to be there. The vast majority hate Blair's guts for sending them there. Britain may be making money out of it, but what do the soldiers get in return? Nothing. My point about the army's shape is not taken from the media. The only stories that the media cling onto are simple ones. For example the Snatch Landrover not being armoured enough and the media suggesting that the soldiers needed big, slow and impossible armoured vehicles (like an APC - Chally 2 crossover - logistically impossible and extremely expensive). While most soldiers preffered the Snatch for it's ability to get out of a situation quickly. My opinions are taken from an extremely well researched book that actually takes a critical look at the present composition and organisation of HM Forces. The author is also a veteran of the forces himself. He argues that the forces are not equipped to fight the types of wars we are fighting now. For example the Navy keeps ordering expensive and useless frigates. How are they supposed to help fight low intensity urban conflicts? Not to mention the fact they are useless for fighting subs. I could cite a lot more examples. There is a point in arguing over defence. It NEEDS to be under proper public scrutiny. Not the media type ie the Snatch Landrover. I strongly suggest you buy Lions Donkeys and Dinosaurs: Waste and Blundering in the military by Lewis Page (www.lewispage.co.uk). It is a very recent book and it will open your eyes to how corrupt defence procurement is. If you care the slightest bit about the forces then you should buy it. After all, don't you want the Army to have the best chance of winning this war?

Was this released? I searched on ofp.info but it didn't turn up.

I stand corrected, and Chops, you posted what I actually meant (that the US and british went into Iraq without any UN baking). But I must say Baff1 is right on the issue of political righteousness. Politicians in any democracy are bullshitters by nature because the only interest they work for is their own - everything they do is for their gain, in one way or the other. Why it is necessary to bring democracy to Iraq, in the view of the U.S. and U.K., methinks, was because since it wasn't a democracy, it was an important country (due to the oil) that could not be "manipulated" by the most powerful democracies as much as if it were a democracy itself. That's the only truth of it. And Saddam was even against the power of the western democracies, so in order for the west to be able to secure their hold on Iraq's oil, they had to "liberate" Iraq from Saddam. It is so true as to be proven by 1. the lack of bogey WMDs that were supposed to be found and 2. the lack of any realistic knowledge and planning of what would happen to Iraq once it got "liberated" from Saddam. For once, the "Forces of Freedom and Libertyâ„¢" found no simpathizers (spelling?) amongst the people they were sent to "liberate"... It's not just an oil boom in Iraq but also a 'security boom'. Private Military Companies are earning millions of dollars from 'protecting' the interests of companies and governments. I believe it was The Times that said 'it was not an oil boom in Iraq, but a security boom' and how right they are. Blackwater USA are now a force to be reckoned with. They are rich, powerful and headed by a Christian/Catholic neo-con called Erik Prince. They now excercise a fair amount of power in US politics. An end to the Iraq conflict would mean a huge loss in profit and power for various PMC's. If you want to know more Jeremy Scahill's book Blackwater The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army provides a brilliant insight into the lucrative world of security.

You are a fool with a vote. You clearly do not know the state that the British Armed Forces are in (go here if you want to know more www.lewispage.co.uk - brilliant book with a wealth of information) . They are in no position to challenge any other country at this point in time. Moreover 'our mission' was not a 'massive success' and it definitely could have gone a fuckin helluva lot better. We have soldiers dying out there so the rich and powerful can earn even more cash than they already have from various interests that are now in Iraq. I'm pretty sure a lot of soldiers in the Army would disagree - and I'm putting that politely - with the statement you have just made here.

Haha, talk about a Pavlov reaction... Baff1 always starts an anti-EU rant as soon as the word "independence" falls. Baff, when will you realise that you are already dependent? No country possesses the resources (be it labour, capital, or natural resources) to live in autarky. And that's a good thing; interdependence is the only thing that guarantees peace. If your economy is closely interconnected with your neighbour's, you will think thrice before attacking him. What you are promoting is a 19th century take on statehood. We've all seen what that leads to. Yes but independence does not mean 'trade embargoes'! We have good trade with the US and the China for instance but we are totally independent from them. The amount of crap that emanates from Brussels ATM is killing the UK! Well it wouldn't be I suppose if it weren’t for the pedantic nature of our leaders swallowing every pill thrown at them, while countries like France just spit them back out! Health and safety is the biggest laugh here ATM. You can't even have a half inch hole in your drive without an inspectors order to repair it! There is enough red tape and official bullshit in the UK right now we don't need any more! Not only that but the EU has opened us up to everyone from the former eastern block countries as well and so we have 'everyone' coming here to take our jobs too! The EU for me is the worst think ever that we as a nation could have joined! We did just fine as a country before it and we would do just fine now without it! Roll on independence!   Been reading The Sun have we?

There certainly is a difference between a Marine and a soldier. The big, major difference is that the Marine can count on his own aircraft flown by Marines who's purpose is to provide air support for the Marines on the ground. Meanwhile the poor soldier is stuck with the Air Force, a seperate entity that is not interested in gunships or CAS aircraft for supporting the army. They want sleek and shiny jets to fight other jets and big useless bombers. A soldier is just as good as a Marine but the Army can't help the fact that they have to rely on a seperate force for air support thus hampering their combat capabilities. You would not have had to do a lot of rebuilding if it had not been for the Air Force bombing uneccesary targets like bridges which the troops would need later on for their advance. They also bombed 'HQ' buildings in population centres causing collateral damage and thus pissing off some young lads who are now seething for revenge. These young men are then further enraged that power stations were bombed causing them to have no electricity, making life harder for their families. The ground forces now arriving late because of bombed out bridges enter the city which now has some angry men armed with AK's hiding in the shadows. The reason the Air Force did all this pointless bombing of vital Iraqi infrastructure was to try and justify their existence as a seperate force in the US Military so all the Air Force commanders can keep their big fat salaries. And that they hate working for the Army.

Are you aiming for a release of everything? ie from d-day to Germany. Or, are you going to release a bit at a time? For example starting with the Normandy drop. Might be easier to do the latter as mods that start with big goals tend to struggle as time goes on.

Does that mean HMS Ocean is in the plans? A very useful but often neglected type of ship.

Can't you just put up with the flag? It's such a small issue. You can't say it's for relaism giving the fact that you wanted HYK's ACU's instead of FacePlant which was the more realistic choice. How about we just give thunderbird a break instead of filling this thread with requests for x and y?

Thought so. It was people like you who influenced the decision. Theres no point in creating a mod if it will bring unhappy people to me. So thanks for your support, my Scottish friend. How? It's the first time I've ever posted in this thread and communicated with you and your team. But yeah I was a bit blunt, long day, so sorry for that. I would have been happy if you released the mod. It's just that a lot of people jump into mod making with optimistic goals. Countless mods have come and gone for OFP and ArmA in this way. Invasion44 for example. Anyway good luck in any future projects.

Thought so.

What updates do you expect? Maybe some of those recent screenshots?

If I remember right this isn't entirely true. Apparently it was explained in the US version of the campaign that it was SLA troops dressed as RACS soldiers. I think , can't completely remember.

The 'geschikt/ongeschikt' campaign is rather old..... And if this was a covert recruitement stunt, why didnt they got MTV to report this? MTV actually asked to report this, which was a no go. Probably because MTV are more concerned about music than video games. Moreover when me and my mates are going through the music channels we always skip MTV because it plays no actual music and is filled with utter shit TV programs like 'My Super Slutty 16'.

Never played OFP I take it. Here is some info from the OFP version to give you an idea of what to expect. SLX Info

Amen to that Flags of our fathers was ok but also pretty boring exept the end that was kinda sad but Letters from Iwo Jima was exellent and really gut wrenching, had to wartch it again in japanese cause it really was a intense movie. But once more i go offtopic, well i look forward to this documentary even if i find the fact bit sad that they only focus on one side. Anyone who watched "Flags of Our Fathers" and thought it was a good movie, knows dick about the history of WWII in the Pacific. Well movies are usually watched for entertainment rather than for historical info so your meaning of 'good' doesn't mean anything in this case. Doh...your right. Â Ok I should have simply stated that there were many things that could have been pointed out for historical inaccuracies, and left out the word 'dick'. Â If you want to point something out just do it. Don't be an arsehole and write it in a know it all, sarcastic tone. I enjoyed watching the film so I thought it was good. It's historical accuracy may not have been up to spec but it was still a nice film. Take the film Black Hawk Down for example. Brilliant film, lots of action etc. But some of the events in the film were totally wrong. For example Eversmann did not go to Wolcott's crash site on foot, he was actually on the 'Lost Convoy'. Do you understand?

Amen to that Flags of our fathers was ok but also pretty boring exept the end that was kinda sad but Letters from Iwo Jima was exellent and really gut wrenching, had to wartch it again in japanese cause it really was a intense movie. But once more i go offtopic, well i look forward to this documentary even if i find the fact bit sad that they only focus on one side. Anyone who watched "Flags of Our Fathers" and thought it was a good movie, knows dick about the history of WWII in the Pacific. Well movies are usually watched for entertainment rather than for historical info so your meaning of 'good' doesn't mean anything in this case.

We aren't expecting the US to do anything. In Britain there are War monuments in every village, town and city with the names of those that have died. And there are rememberance services at these monuments every year on November the 11th. It's like your saying that we do nothing to remember the sacrifice these people made, although I know that you do not mean that. All I said was that it would have been nice to include soldiers from all the sides given the size of the documentary. But the angle that Burns has taken does sound interesting and hopefully it will be shown in the UK at somepoint. I liked his American Civil War documentary, hopefully this will improve upon that.

He means the politics of the time. He is not saying that it is unbiased. What a shame if it is only US veterans. It would have been nice to include other 1st hand accounts from all sides.

Solus who developed the incredible SLX mod for OFP included the feature to drag wounded or dead soldiers. Solus is also developing an SLX mod for ArmA, in fact several people from the community are testing it right now I believe. He has also released a small bulletholes addon for ArmA that will be featured in the final SLX mod. I suggest you take a look in the OFP addons and mods complete section to see how the ArmA version could turn out.