BAS-Damocles

@FSPilot we are looking into your particular issue with some interest, and have a desire to get it fixed so you can enjoy the addon. We will need more information to try to come up with a solution. Having looked at the system specs you posted, I will offer the following suggestions/explanations: Your graphics card is a lower end card, and possibly has trouble handling the BAS Add-ons in particular due to the amount of faces etc. Ours are fairly intensive, combined with the effects included. This is a possibility but unlikely in my estimation, as your system seems as a whole more then capable of handling the game. A more likely problem is some sort of corruption. You did say you have an excessive amount of files in your addon folder. Begin with cleaning your system out. This may include un- installing and reinstalling OFP completely. Remember to back up your addon folder, so you can keep the ones you want. Then download a fresh copy of the MH-47E addon, in the event the download was corrupted somehow. Install it normally and try again. Please contact us by email to further explore a solution if this doesn’t work for you. Now on to other business! Due to the fact that this is rapidly becoming a flame, this will be my final post to this thread. I am going to make this post to attempt to get a final point across, and then hope for the best. First, once again, for all you completely narrow-minded folks, who consistently and completely miss the point time and again. We DO want to be made aware of bugs in our released addon, and we WILL do our best to correct them in a timely manner. We DO support our product, and we appreciate and want to thank the folks that truly understand the big picture and appreciate what we, and all the other addon makers do to make these things possible for the community. Now then. It is apparent that it is only acceptable for the community to offer criticism, opinions and complaints in these forums, judging by the accusations we receive when we offer the same, in the same forums. It is also apparent that the hardworking members of BAS are not permitted to display their frustration and disappointment in the way this very community treats them. This is disturbing on several levels, but I am going to once again address these issues with facts. Something that many members of the community seem to have no inclination or desire to do. Here's the facts column: We can take criticism, and complaints, and even flames. We welcome it. We truly don’t care what people say, we're confident it what we can create. After all, what have YOU the complainer done for the community lately? We at BAS haven't seen any of your work, so we hardly feel threatened. What forces us to address certain issues, is when the comments of the minority begin to influence the majority in a way that is detrimental to our ability to produce add-ons. What do I mean you ask? Well, simply this: You folks only see these public threads, and after criticizing our add-ons, you then criticize our responses. What you don’t see or know, is the fact that we've literally had to add to the members of the staff of BAS JUST to reply to the email we receive regarding the add-ons we release. Some of it positive and helpful, some of it criticism, some of it bug related, but a large majority of it is the completely useless type. This causes the whole BAS team to have to filter through all the mail in order to answer and identify the helpful and serious mail. While the team is sorting BS flame mail, to find the true bug reports etc, it isn’t possible to make new add-ons, and bug fix released ones at the same time. Many of you don’t read the provided documentation, so we have to sort through your complaints, and compare it to our documentation, to ensure they aren’t previously identified bugs. That being said, someone who belongs to another fairly reputable addon team posting an image of a HMMVW jammed in the door of the MH-47E, asking why it doesn’t fit and isn’t supported, generates an excessive amount of interrogative email and posts enquiring about the same issues, which WE the BAS team, have to sort through. Is this constructive and helpful criticism? Or is it useless and silly? I’m inclined to go with the latter. It doesn’t take a military expert to know or find out these things, and I’m quite sure if you’re posting here, you can read and have access to the internet. I am also certain that NO ONE has ever seen an authentic non doctored photograph of a HMMVW driving into, or out of an MH-47E. The topic of this thread was the release of the BAS MH-47E and comments about the release. Not bugs, not criticism of the addon, which can’t possibly be founded and realistic, due to the fact that MANY of the critics posted literally within minutes and HOURS of the release. We have worked on and tested this addon for MONTHS... Can you really offer honest criticism in a few minutes to a few hours of play? Are we to honestly to take this sort of nonsense seriously? Many of you are spoiled children, and very demanding, and this is an annoyance. Many of you drop in your two cents without reading the complete thread, and therefore speak out of turn and out of context. Those of you who find my posts boring feel free not to read them, and in kind feel free not to post in response, since you are obviously lacking the complete story. @ShadowY Do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously? A 20 minute evaluation of the addon, admittedly haven’t read the readme, and have never posted in BAS topics, and basically jumping in mid thread? This is helpful? @SGTKOPP We are aware of the public’s status where criticism is concerned. I am doing my job for BAS in being a buffer between them and the public. Do me a favor and read the ENTIRE topic completely, and truly objectively evaluate was has been said from both sides. Aside from that, they are in fact our Add-ons, I guess we can bitch if we want to. Due to the amount of negative traffic and increasingly demanding attitudes and pressure generated by the community, it is becoming increasingly difficult to produce. We are constantly forced to deal with unreasonable demands, false bug reports, and general flame mail, combined with repeated hacks, and attempts to hack and get our add-ons before release. This generates animosity among the members of BAS who are less likely to want to work as hard as we do to provide add-ons for an un appreciative and demanding community, who somehow have the impression that BAS owes them add-ons and is required to produce and support them. Think about it, within minutes of the release of the MH-47E, the initially posts are that’s great, where’s the next one. Not wow thanks; I’m going to spend some time with this one. That’s a hard pill to swallow for BAS, who has been working on the MH-47E project since November 2002. That’s 6 months of work for someone to say "when’s the next one" or "I want the MH-60" The attitudes and behavior of the minority in the community, which are the demanding unappreciative types, seem to have a great amount of influence on the rest of the community. This is damaging to addon makers, and with respect to BAS harmful to us and our efforts. Tigershark and I work diligently to keep the team together, and motivated to produce. However, the more add-ons we release, and the more feature rich they are, the more negative feedback they seem to generate, and the less thanks they generate. This causes our team to want to just be a player, and not a producer. The BAS team is all volunteer. If enough of you insist on giving them a bad taste, and being abusive, then I can’t guarantee continued releases of add-ons in the future. Appreciation and thanks go along way toward truly motivating someone, and giving them personal satisfaction out of completing something. Unappreciative ness, demands, and unreasonable criticism go even further towards making people decide it isn’t worth their time, or the stress to make add-ons, when they can stop altogether, and just play OFP. You the community control whether or not BAS continues to produce high quality add-ons by your actions and attitudes. The community as a whole needs to start taking some responsibility and getting a grip on these unreasonable folks, thereby assisting not just BAS, but all the addon teams in the community to accomplish their work. We want and enjoy receiving criticism; it makes us stronger, and able to produce ever better add-ons. However we also would like to see some thanks and appreciation before demands and unreasonable criticism once in a while. It goes a long way. I’m going to close with this statement. Those of you who think that Damocles takes all this stuff personally, and that’s why he writes these lengthy posts, let me clue you in on something. Damo doest know how to model in O2, Damo doesn’t know how to texture, Damo doesn’t know a thing about scripting, and Damo has a very basic understanding of the game engine. What Damo does for BAS is provide leadership and management, along with TigerShark, as well as military knowledge and experience, as well as research on projects. The point is, Damo doesn’t take any of these comments personally, since overall he provides VERY LITTLE labor in getting these add-ons completed. However, as a project manager and producer, he does see the effect these things have on his team. As a leader it is his responsibility to care for, motivate, and defend his team, and their work. This he will do to the best of his ability, and this is why I post on behalf of the team. We have a great bunch of people assembled here, whom I respect greatly, and who continue to work hard for the community. Even for those less then appreciative and unreasonably demanding folks out there. However, they are only human, and I can't at all guarantee continued service from them. After all, what exactly is their payoff?? You guys get to play with and pick apart their work, and they get picked apart even when they try to defend it. All the while we haven’t seen any add-ons coming from you. You guys need to get a clue and cut them some slack.

Something else I wanted to mention while were revisiting the subject of free work, liability and responsibilty etc. I noticed another complaint in this very thread that not only disturbed me greatly but in fact pissed me off. The thread was a complaint about not being able to download our files, and talk about BAS should have mirrored them etc. Once again if the show fits wear it with regard to the following statements. First of all as you are aware, BAS does not get paid for the work we do for you the community, for free. Secondly, web hosting is not free, and getting files hosted is not free. As it stands right now, not only does our founder Tigershark not get paid to put this all together, maintain a website, a development team, a developers forum, and the other various things he does, in order to bring these addons to you people, as do all of us belonging to BAS, but he PAYS for hosting out of his own pocket. With the exception of a VERY few people, we havent gotten offers to host our files, or provide space for our webs, or even a public BAS forum. Hell we dont even have a server thats adequate to use for beta testing and multi-player gaming for ourselves. You folks have a lot of nerve and a knack for being extremely critical and demanding, however let me make you aware of one fact. These free addons we provide are only free to YOU the community. They DO cost US (Ballistic Addon Studios) money to make. Whether it be for webspace, software to do the work, our time, or the sacrifices we often make to get them to you, they arent free. Think about that next time you want to complain and be critical. Or how about offering something to us for a change, in return for the work we do for you all? The plain facts are these, we are currently running out of space on our website, we have to watch how many files we host, and how often we host them due to bandwidth limitations (Over a certain amount per month, comes out of Tigershark's wallet) and we have to attempt to keep the files secure as well. The software and tools we use to create these high quality addons are paid for by the members of BAS. Things such as Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, 3D Studio Max, Graphics Tablets, and all the various things we use to do the work. With all these obstacles we still do the work. So please, give us a break, and some thanks, and think before you speak. Think about the cost to us before you begin useless criticisms and complaints. If these comments dont apply to you, dont take them personally. We at BAS are tremendously thankful and appreciative of those that have offered space and hosted files for us. We hope to continue this in the future. The whole concept is team work. Together we can make this all work out from start to finish.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kikill @ 26 April 2003,23:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">@damocles i agree with you except this : </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BAS-Damocles @ 26 April 2003,17:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Further, we have no obligation to provide support for anything we release, we have no obligation to answer questions, fix bugs, or return emails to anyone, this is another FREE service we provide, again giving of our time, talents and efforts to accomplish it.<span id='postcolor'> i think it belongs to what you called respect and courtesy, (not regarding comments about bugs you previously listed in readme). IMHO once it is public, you have a little responsibility, and EXPECT some feed back. you also have to admit that most us, the public, aren't military expert, we ALL don't have connexion with some army men etc... ALL OF US aren't specialist in O2 or texturing, 3D modeling. Remember: we DO appreciate your hard free work for US, and just want to bring our two cents (you can take one for your royaltie), i admit it's too bad that some of us don't take the time to read the readme, or maybe they didn't understand it, they didn't even read this thread... but i'm sure BAS' "devise" isn't : "Take that addon and shut the fuck up or just say Thank you" voila! sorry for my bad english...<span id='postcolor'> well KiKill I hate to sound like an ass but you missed the point entirely. You see, we dont charge a fee for our addons, and you arent obligated to download and use them. That being said, we are in no way obligated or responsible to support the addons we create, or fix anything that is wrong with them. If you were to pay us however, there there would be some responsibility involved, however, your opinion as to what should be fixed, and the deadline in which to fix it, versus the amount of time it takes to do the fixing, times our fee, would dramatically change. Solve the formula (Bugs+importance / impact+deadline X BAS salary ) and guess what you get? Bohemia Interactive Studios. Which means you will get basic, quickly and cheaply done, minimally functional models that work adequetately for their purpose. You may or may not be aware of this, but if you will read the readme file and End User License Agreement (EULA) on nearly every software product available, you will discover that not only do you not "own" the software you purchased, the company reserves the right to modify, discontinue, and cease support on the software at any time, the software companies are limited and protected in their liabilities. This includes the operating system you are using. You dont purchase software, you purchase a license to use software. As I said, once again, We can, do, and will support our addons. we do it because we enjoy it, and we care about the community, and we take pride in our work. Enough so, that it is important to us to make the corrections to problems found. However dont take it for granted, and just try to be appreciative once in a while. We don't expect everyone to be military experts, or have connections to the military, however we are aware that most people throught the world who play with and use our addons have access to the internet and a library. (Yeah that building with the "Paper" books in it.) If we tell you we wont do something, and give a reason why, why not research it yourself before flapping your gums? Google search works the same on a PC in Europe as it does in the US. Thanks for your opinion, but you are incorrect.

Hi Folks, Damo here again! One item I forgot to address in the "silly and unreasonable" category. This is the issue of the HMMVW fitting in the back of the MH-47E... Â This is explained simply. It can't be done, and isnt done in real life. HMMVW can be slung, and in fact HMMVWs come equiped with lifting shackles front and rear permanently mounted for this purpose. The wheel base on the HMMVW is too wide to allow it to fit inside an MH-47E. Additionally, it isnt possible to carry more than one RSOV, or M151 Jeep internally due to size and space, as well as loading requirements in real life. So basically the point is this: If your requests are not possibilities in reality, then BAS wont be adding them. Do a little reading and research on your own folks, and give us a break. People, if you post threads that say things as idiotic as "why cant I sling an M1 Abrams under the MH-47E" then expect to get your feelings hurt in the response. For you folks out there that suffer from incurable intra-cranial density, the reason why you cant sling an Abrams is because it ways anywhere from 67.5 to 70 tons depending on the model and year of manufacture. Ergo, it isnt physically possible.

Ok, I gave it a few days, let lots of folks post, and get things out of their systems, and gave the released add-on some time to cool off in everyone's machine. Now it's time for Damo's two cents. (Yes this could be a trademark literary work) Firstly, let me begin by saying thank you to all the truly appreciative fans out there that truly enjoy the add-on, and have some small amount of understanding into what exactly is involved in making an add-on, and then the extra work that goes in to making it a BAS Add-on. We at BAS don’t simply make just “add-ons.†Lots of people make add-ons, we at BAS go the extra mile to make ours truly unique. We accomplish this in several ways, such as thorough research, to include photographic and technical data, talking to and interviewing real personnel who have experience with the various add-ons we create. To include pilots, real SF people, real Rangers, real SFOD-D personnel, crew chiefs, aviation mechanics, medics, and whomever else we think would help in the process of creating a realistic add-on. We often spend an inordinate amount of hours modeling from scratch, using either O2, or 3D Studio Max. Our textures are created in house, by a few extremely talented individuals, which are also extensively researched for accuracy and correctness, and we try to duplicate reality. Our scripting is also created in house by our talented and experienced scripters, who as you can see, have overcome some incredible obstacles to make our products work. That being said, we are also not above looking for and requesting outside help in the event we are unable to solve various problems or simply that someone else’s solution functions better then ours. We always give the appropriate credit, and kudos to the people who assist us. We recognize skill and talent, which often results in repeat requests for work. In all of this it must be pointed out and reinforced that this is all done without pay. We don’t have an extensive R&D budget, a funded art department, and paid scripters to bring all these things together. What we do have is a team of talented people who enjoy OFP, and making add-ons to enhance the experience. Secondary to that, we think these enhancements should be shared, so everyone can enjoy the things we have created. We volunteer our time and efforts to bring these things together, most of which are borne of an initial idea, and as the project is developed and researched, capabilities are determined and expanded on. Our limiting factors are twofold: The game engine, and our imagination. I can guarantee that our imagination is unfortunately uncontrollably limited by the game engine, because we are certainly not without ideas! All that being said, once again thank you, all who are truly appreciative of this add-on. Now on to the other matters. You all may or may not be aware, but I am probably known as one of the more abrasive members of BAS. I do not apologize for this, however by way of explanation I will say this: I have little tolerance and use for stupidity, irrelevance, and unreasonable behavior. I can and do get along well with most folks, but I do expect to be treated, and expect the members of my team to be treated in the way that everyone else expects to be treated. This means a little respect and courtesy. I will now respond and answer some of the posts I’ve seen so far, beginning by saying this: I think perhaps as much as 80 percent of the issues I’m reading are due to YOU the PUBLIC failing to perform the simple task of reading the readme file included with the release of the add-on. I don’t know whether this is due to a worldwide literacy problem, or worldwide laziness problem, or both. I do know however, that it is NOT our (BAS’s) problem, and I will be instructing the entire team not to respond to posts that are addressed in the readme. Now, it is my hope that what I just said won’t be taken personally, and will be applied only to those for whom the statement fits. Read the provided readme file. As to the statements made about “tantrums†when criticized or bugs are pointed out, let me clarify something, and hopefully it will get through to you all, and you will understand. We are providing a free service for your enjoyment and use. We ask for nothing in return. However, this is met with demands, unconstructive and useless criticism and bashing, inquiries as to when the next add-on will be released, and requests for instantaneous real-time bug fixes. There is a post in this very thread that says with a tone of indignance something to the effect that the user emailed us with a bug report and hasn’t received a response or a fix. The timeline of which was less then a 24-hour period. Assuming he was the only individual on the planet who received the add-on, and the only one from whom we received email, then I supposed we were remiss. Completely unreasonable. Further, we have no obligation to provide support for anything we release, we have no obligation to answer questions, fix bugs, or return emails to anyone, this is another FREE service we provide, again giving of our time, talents and efforts to accomplish it. That being said, we DO want to receive bug reports, so that we CAN work to correct them, however we do ask that you perform the simple task of READING the readme file before you force us to sort through reams of useless info that was already addressed. This prevents us from identifying and fixing actual problems in a timely manner. I guess the point is simply this, we work extremely hard for you the community, to bring you the best possible add-ons to be had, and we ask only for a bit of consideration. Those of you who don’t like or appreciate what we have provided have the option not to use them at all, or if you think you can do it yourself or better, then feel free, and we wish you the best of luck and success in doing so. As to the issues involving the game engine, feel free to write and approach BIS in the same manner as you do us, maybe they will respond to you and your every whim. Somehow I doubt it, being that their main concern has very little to do with your happiness and enjoyment, and very much to do with the corporate bottom line, which is to say money. I dare say fixes come out of BAS faster then they do BIS. Oh, and incidentally, how many BIS choppers have you been able to fast rope out of, or that have anti missile countermeasures? What’s that? None? Yeah that’s what I thought. Tantrums? While I don’t at all think any member of BAS has posted in a manner that can be considered one, I certainly think they earned the right to do it if they chose to do so. Give us the time and consideration to identify and compile the true bugs that can be corrected, as we will do so. In the meantime enjoy the add-on, and if for some reason you simply cant stand it, DON’T USE IT. If you have some truly useful comments or suggestions as to how to improve, or otherwise make our products better, then we welcome the input, however if your soul purpose is to piss and moan, then you can feel free to produce your own add-ons. We ask only for a little common courtesy and respect for what we do, and once in a while a simple thanks would be of incalculable value to the team. To those who are truly helpful and thankful, we appreciate it, and stay tuned for more fine products to come out of our studios!

The Pilots and Crew are wearing accurately modeled and animated ANVIS/6 goggles, however due to the game engine they are pure eye candy. The NVGs are Hard coded by BIS, meaning if you turn on the NVGs from the menu, the old BIS AN/PVS-5 Goggles appear on you face, and that of any AIs, regardless of the model added. This is not something that is correctable insofar as we are aware. We have spent an inordinate number of manhours researching the problem, and attempting different things to add our own correct NVGs to the game, if there is a fix or a way to do this, we havent found it. If there is a way, please feel free to share folks, BAS will ask to use, and give all proper credit for the use of the solution!!

Since I am a technical advisor for BAS among other things, and since I do have nearly 11 years and counting experience in the US Army, I felt it important to point out some details once again, in the interest of accuracy, after having read this and many other threads on the same type of issue. 1. Fast Roping is not Rappelling. Fast roping is similar to sliding down a pole like firefighters use in fire stations. The Difference being, the Army uses a long three-inch wide rope thrown out of a hovering helicopter. Fast ropes come in lengths of of forty, sixty, eighty, and ninety-feet. Fast roping requires a soldier to place the hands around the rope and free fall down to the ground. Just before landing, the soldier grips the rope to "break" the descent. This allows for a very rapid descent with a momentary stop before hitting the ground. During a fast rope insertion, several soldiers can slide down a single rope (The same rope) at one time, allowing a fast and efficient  disembarkation/insertion, which limits exposure time both for the helicopter, and the inserting force. Fast Roping is the most frequently used method of insertion by helicopter for combat operations. The techniques used during Operation Restore Hope in 1993 by Task Force Ranger were fast rope insertions at several points simultaniously. 2. Rappelling is not Fast Roping. Definition: rap·pel [r? pél] vi (past rap·pelled, past participle rap·pelled, present participle rap·pel·ling, 3rd person present singular rap·pels) descend by rope: to descend a steep slope or vertical face using a rope that is secured at the top and passed through a series of coils or a harness around the body. U.K. term abseil v. n descent by rappelling: a descent made by rappelling. U.K. term abseil n. [Mid-20th century. From French , from Old French rapeler “to recall,†from apeler “to call.â€] Rappelling requires the use of a harness or saddle, requires more extensive training to be done safely and properly, and additional takes longer to execute. During a rappel operation, only one person can descend on each rope at a time, and after landing must detach from the harness. This takes time to accomplish, and is a limiting factor. I.E. A UH-60L Black Hawk helicopter can Deploy up to four Rappelling ropes at once, or up to four Fast Ropes at once. If rappelling is used, only four soldiers can insert at one time, and must reach the ground and disconnect, and then perform belay for following soldiers. If the Fast Rope is used, two to three soldiers can slide down each rope at once, and can move to cover immediately upon reaching the ground. Soldiers are not physically connected to a fast rope, in fact they simply hold on with hands and feet. Belaying is not needed as the thick, heavy fast rope stays in place by itself, and is further stabilized for soldiers exiting the helicopter by the soldiers who are nearing the ground. Using the Fast Rope technique, a helicopter can insert 25 to 30 soldiers in under 30 seconds, in any terrain, at night or during the day. Rappelling does have military applications and is used in certain conditions and circumstances, dependant on the mission requirements, and is especially suited to rescue operations.

Ok I had posted a reply, but it seems to have vanished so I'll try it again. We think you guy will be very pleased with the re-release of the MH-47E, and we are confident it is unlike anything you've ever seen, and anything you've tried in OFP. Our guys spent lots of time, and their blood, sweat, and tears, in an effort to perfect this aircraft, and get it up to the BAS standard. We are confident in saying there is nothing like it, and no one comes close to it. As to the included features, all I can say is: YOU MUST read the read me file, since the Federal Aviation Administration in the US nearly made us require everyone to have a pilots license just to release it! As to the comments about the cargo ramp, I think you'll be pleased with the options available. As to the comments about rappelling. Actually, and especially in the case of the MH-47E (Which is a special operations helicopter) Both Rappelling and Fast Roping are done frequently from the aircraft in reality. Multiple personnel can Rappel/Rope off the ramp at one time, and in some instances, personnel can Rappel/Rope through the cargo window in the floor of the bird. The CH/MH-47 is capable of many types of operations which are frequently trained and are standard proceedures including: Helo Casting, Wet insertions/Extractions, SPIES/STABO, Rappelling/Fast Roping, and CSAR Rescue winching type functions. In any event we think you guys will be pleased and pleasantly surprised with our release, and as always it will have the BAS Quality Standard... I think you'll find that it is going to raise the bar once again in addon quality and functionality standards in the entire community. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">MH-47D/E Standard Mission Equipment The MH-47 is configured with the following equipment: Aircraft communications equipment consists of FM, UHF (with HAVE QUICK II capability), VHF, HF, SATCOM, and the Motorola Saber. The MH-47E is equipped with SINCGARS VHF-FM single channel ground and airborne radio system. Automatic Target Hand-off System provides the capability of data bursting pre-selected/ formatted information to other equipped aircraft or ground stations. A navigation system consisting of a Mission Computer utilizing GPS/INS/Doppler navigation sources for pinpoint navigation. Fast Rope Insertion Extraction System. May be utilized for insertion and extraction of personnel. Applied loads at the rear ramp for insertions will not exceed 9 persons per rope at the same time. Applied loads at the rear ramp for extractions will not exceed 6 persons per rope at the same time. Internal Rescue Hoist. Is configured for use at the center cargo hook/rescue hatch. It has a 600 lb. capacity and approximately 150 feet of useable cable. External Rescue Hoist (MH-47E only). Is configured for use at the right front cabin door and has a 6000 lb. capacity with 245 feet of useable cable. Also Fastrope capable with hoist installed. External Cargo Hook System. Each hook may be used separately or in conjunction with each other. All loads should be planned as a tandem rigged load, this will facilitate greater load stability and insure faster airspeeds during flight. Hook limitations are as follows: Forward Hook - 17,000 lb. Center Hook - 26,000 lb. Aft Hook - 17,000 lb. Tandem Hook - 25,000 lb. NOTE:These are maximum hook rated loads and may not accurately reflect the true capability of the aircraft due to external conditions, i.e., pressure altitude and temperature.<span id='postcolor'>

Doh! Somehow my post went to the wrong thread!!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Landwarrior87 @ April 11 2003,21:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">were those 15-20 soldiers Fully Equipped?? and anyway the rangers say up to 11, and thats what bas is making. And yes.. the M4 sounds need to be improved, ive been noticing in real life sounds from the war the M4 doesnt sound like it did in the BHD movie.. its more of a Loud Snap noise. And the Machine Gun sounds, i never liked em.. if nothing else updated.. update the Machine Gun and m4 Sounds. the m4's shouldnt sound so Mog 1993.. after all.. u rnt making addons from that time anyway right?<span id='postcolor'> Just to add to the conversation, In peacetime training there are many things that we dont or are not authorized to do for safety sake, that is done routinely during actual combat operations. Additionally, some units are authorized to train in certain ways based on their mission, such as Special Ops units, that regular troops dont do. Putting 15 guys in a Black Hawk in no way overloads the bird, (I've seen Black Hawks lifting a HMMVW with a 155 Towed Howitzer attached, among other things) Incidently a Black Hawk with seats installed can carry 17 Pax total: Pilot, Copilot, two crewchiefs (left and right) and 13 troops (Squad leader seat is between the crew chief seats) The pros and cons are like this: (We call them risk assesments) This is very basic and just an example so bear with me. Factors? Mission Requirements? Combat Operations? Peacetime Training? Seats in = some crash protection, limited equipment room, and less men, slightly more range without stubwings installed.(Probably OK in training no danger of receiving fire) Seats out = less crash protection,(which is negated by the potential of taking fire in combat and being shot down, where seats arent much help) more men, more equipment,(= More combat power and capability) less range. (Can be extended with stubwings) Also some technical info about your comments regarding the M4, and Mogadishu etc. We are working on a way to improve the sounds for all our weapons. However, there were no M4s in Mogadishu in 1993, since they hadnt yet been developed fully or put into production. Additionally, the guys that were using your "M4s" were also using different ammunition then standard issue ammo. (until they ran out and were forced to consolidate with the Rangers of course) That said, a .223 (5.56mm NATO) is a .223. The difference in sound is not really perceptable between projectiles leaving the muzzle, especially with no experience. Lastly, and this is key: THAT WAS A MOVIE, and therefore they were A. Firing Blanks (Which sound very much different since you wont here the crack of the projectile leaving the muzzle at supersonic speed) or B. using the Hollywood special effect propane guns, which detonates a small burst of propane to give the POP sound of a weapon firing. Point being, it was a MOVIE and not real. It never ceases to amaze me how people base their opinions and comments on the accuracy of ANYONES addons and models not just BAS on what they saw in a movie, rather then real research and info from real soldiers. Those are my two cents!

In response to the issue of the MH-47Es volume and distance heard. Being able to hear the startup and in flight sounds MILES away, isnt only the MH-47E. This is true of all the helicopters in OFP. It is a fairly well known game engine bug. This is also the reason why you can hear footsteps and breathing soldiers, even when none are near. I am not aware of this ever having been fixed.

There is a medic already included with the Rangers, and the length of time it takes to self heal, or heal another soldier is considerable already. We havent truly seen this to be an issue with respect to game balance, either in single or multi player modes of play. Additionally our missions to demo then units and their skills often place them in a situation of being vastly outnumbered. In the single player mode this is quite challenging. As to game balance issues when creating multiplayer missions, you should remeber that Deltas operate in small units. Often times in teams of 4. Obviously if you are building missions that are battalion sized elements of Deltas and even Rangers there is going to be a balance issue. Until a method can be divised to adequately handle the issue we plan to leave them as is. As I stated we have tested them fairly extensively, and for realism sake we intended them to be stronger and more capable than standard units as they are in reality. The addons were intended to augment normal forces to enhance the realism of mission building. It is truly not feasible realstic or likely to use large numbers of these guys in reality or in game with the exception of using the Rangers to create an Airfield Seizure mission, in which case in reality an ENTIRE company would be dropped directly on an airfield to physically take it from the enemy, and keep the runway intact for allied use. If trying to create a realistic scenario in game involving an airfield siezure, then game balance would purposely be poor from the defending side as would be the case in reality. The only hope for the defender would come in the form of well lead and employed reinforcements, because badguys on the airfield are toast.

Just to respond to the issue regarding self healing units etc: Firstly, in reality SF soldiers (Delta, Rangers, SEALs, and Special Forces) are all issued and wear body armor that also includes plates that will stop up to and including 7.62mm rounds. Additionally SF soldiers receive quite a bit more first aid training, as well as more advanced training then the average soldier. Rangers are required to have several EMT (Emergency Medical Technician) certified soldiers per squad in addition to the medics that may be traveling with the squad or platoon. Special Forces soldiers (Delta, SEALs, included) not only have etremely advanced first aid capabilities provided by their medics, they also cross train each skill among the other members. We tried to simulate this as accurately as possible within the game engine, and as to the question of balance this is somewhat evened out due to the fact that while healing, or healing another unit, the unit is not able to return fire or seek cover. You will also notice that extreme range shots with any of the available weapons are less effective then shots taken within the weapons effective range envelope . This too simulates a realistic condition. We assure you they are not indestructable and can be killed by normal troops.

My apologies once again Ox if I've ofended. I thought I was fairly clear when I explained the context in which we were discussing the term. Additionally I thought I made it clear that I wasnt calling you a civilian or dismissing you in any way. I even went back and re read the related posts. I'm really at a loss to understand your sudden lashing out.

3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Feb. 24 2003,003)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Damocles, I salute you! Seriously! I've never met someone who knew evertyhing, or was never mistaken about anything! It's a real privilege! Me, I'm just a lesser being who can accept that there are some things I haven't heard of before, or that there may just be someone out there that knows something I don't. Kudos to you! <span id='postcolor'> Well now, there was a wholly uncalled for remark, packed with plenty of research and info to show me where I am in error. I thank you for pointing out absolutely...well nothing but another personal attack. This is a prime example of what Im talking about. Perhaps you'd like to actually contribute in a useful way to the converstation by providing some actual information and research to quantify and qualify your statement? Or do you prefer to just launch lip rockets? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">SGTKOPP Posted: Feb. 23 2003,23:22 as for jamming i have to say the major contributor is the magaizine i have fired M4s M16a1,a2 a4s almost 99% of all jams where caused by old worn out mag springs. Like any weapon you have to lube it and keep it clean One thing about the AK is that it is simple only has 11 pieces abd it is easy to use <span id='postcolor'> SGT Kopp is absolutely correct. There are two major points of failure with the M16 family of weapons, the primary one being magazine springs. This has been extensively worked on, and while improvements have been made, there is as yet no fool proof cost effective solution. The Second point of failure being the buffer spring wearing out, which also can cause feed issues. This problem has been largely solved with the use of Hydraulic Buffers in the weapons that SF uses. SGT Kopp, he hasnt gotten to me, I actually reply becuase I find it entertaining to see what they will post next.

I wasnt by any means bickering, however I will defend my position when attempting to answer questions. This also applies when I post a statement to clarify confusion and a bunch of armchair commandos and children 17 years old and younger start a slam campaign. I am happy to reply and share my knowledge, and will continue to do so, supplying as much supporting information as is necessary, or requested to support my statements. The is a method of providing credibility and not just running off at the mouth. If the length and or content of the postings in some way offend or irritate you to some degree, feel free not to read them, and not to post how you feel I should respond or what you think I should do. I think aside from the one or two that will always be argumentative, there are probably two or more dozen who'd like to just be involved, have an intelligent conversation, and truly learn and share their knowledge and experiences themselves. I'd like to cater to those people, and continue to share with them. If you will notice, at a much earlier time I posted that those desiring to be argumentative, and otherwise carry the thread in a tone other then sharing info continue in email. I realize that for some reason my posts are intimidating, which I dont understand, but like the rest of the individuals who post here, I too enjoy sharing, and I do have pride in what I do. I try to be objective, and accepting of all except the outright blatant BS. Since I know you are more then likely reading this post, I thank you for your time. Incidently I am also capable of reading profiles, and thusly realise that you are not 17 and younger.

You were asking what the various names and designations meant, such as RTO etc... I posted a reply to you, I wasnt sure whether you saw it. Of course judging by my fan base, I dont know if my explanations are to be trusted.

Avon, did you ever see my answers to the questions you posted? I wasnt sure if you did, I wanted you to know I didnt overlook you.

In the unlikely event this will at all help with my credibility I thought I'd share it. Received it back when I was a "buck" Sergeant. Once again, I'm just a soldier what do I know.

@ .argus. and Also @ PFC_Mike (And absorb only what is applicable to you, as not all of these statements are directed at you, nor are all of them directed at .argus.) At this point it is clear that you are simply trying to be argumentative about the whole business, so this will be my last response to you in this forum. I say this because many of the counterpoints you are attempting to make are what I was saying to begin with, so Im not really sure WHY youre countering. Firstly, it is very clear that you didnt truly carefully read and understand what I posted because in some instances, you were actually reitterating and making my point for me, and not at all getting the point. Secondly I think we can agree that Civil law enforcement CQB and military CQB are tactically quite a different thing, with the exception of instances in which hostage rescue, or VIP extraction scenarios are concerned. Even in that case, military operations differ tactically in that A military operators primary function is not to take bad guys into custody and uphold the law, but rather close with and kill the enemy. Units like the SAS, and SFOD-D dont perform high risk entry missions with the thought in mind of "How many badguys can I capture alive" they do it with the thought of "protect and extract hostages and KILL badguys" In the same way, regular infantry units perform CQB to CLEAR the structures of enemy personnel. This doesnt mean see how many we can get to surrender, or see how many we can capture alive. This means destroy and remove the presence of the enemy in the area. Once again I was answering questions and making statements based on first hand info, personal experience, and years of study. If you will research objectively, im sure youll come across many of the items I discussed. have a look at this: Janes IDR October 2002, "Small arms ammunition advances bit by bit" by Charles Q. Cutshaw on Pages 36-37 reports: "There have been several reports from troops in Afghanistan regarding the lack of lethality of the SS109/M855 cartridge, particularly when it is fired from an M4 (US) or M8 (Canadian) carbine. This was also observed in Somalia. For the SS109/M855 to achieve lethality, it must be moving at a velocity of over 732m/s when it strikes its target. At this velocity and above, the bullet penetrates a short distance and then begins to yaw as its spinning slows and it tends to return to normal stable state, which is base forward. As the bullet yaws, it comes apart at the cannelure, scattering fragments and causing a relatively large wound channel. In practical terms, this translates to approximately 200m with a bullet fired from an M16 or similar rifle with a 558mm barrel at approximately 914m/s. When fired from a carbine, however, the SS109/M855 bullet leaves the barrel with a velocity of only about 790m/s. Therefore by the time it has traveled downrange only 50m it has already dropped below the velocity threshold for enhanced wound ballistics. The net effect is that troops equipped with M4 or M8 carbines are using weapons that are only marginally more effective ballistically than a 0.22 Magnum at anything other an close-quarters battle distances. The lack of wounding efficacy has caused some military elements to begin exploring the possibility of adopting a 5.56x45mm cartridge with an improved bullet or even a different caliber altogether with improved wound ballistics. Most of these efforts, now only in the earliest stages, have experimented with heavier bullets. For example, US special operations forces in Afghanistan now employ a match cartridge manufactured by US company Black Hills Ammunition that fires a 5g bullet at 792m/s in the M4 Carbine. This cartridge has proven to have improved terminal ballistics over the SS109/M855. Other experiments have been conducted with bullets weighting as much as 6.5g. Some have proposed adopting an entirely new caliber, but this is unlikely in the immediate futures." I think we can all agree that Jane's is a fairly well respected publication the world over, and in fact their publications are used to this day by ALL BRANCHES of the US Military for various purposes. Here's a response to the Jane's info from someone who seems to know what they are talking about: "Dear Sir, Let me first say that I find your website to be fascinating and informative. Let me also say that I am no great proponent of the 5.56 cartridge. I believe that there was a typo or some kind of error in the text written by Mr. Cutshaw in the article he wrote for 'Janes' concerning the lethality of the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge. Mr. Cutshaw states that the SS-109 / M-855 must be traveling at over 732m/s to properly fragment. Mr. Cutshaw also states that the standard M-16 generates a muzzle velocity of 914 m/s with its 20" barrel and the M-4 only yields 790 m/s with its 16" barrel. He states that the SS-109/M-855 falls below the 'required' 732 m/s at the 200-meter mark when fired from the M-16. He also claims that the SS-109 falls below 732 m/s at only 50 meters when fired from the M-4. This is impossible. Generally 1" difference in barrel length equals a difference of 30 fps. By following this formula we find that if the M-16 fires this round at 2900 fps the M-4 should fire it at 2720 fps. Even at the most extreme, the M-4 must achieve at least 2600 fps at the muzzle. If we assign a ballistic coefficient of .265 to the SS-109 bullet and crunch the numbers we find that if the muzzle velocity is 2900 fps, at 200 yards the bullet is moving at 2218 fps. Using a muzzle velocity of 2600, at 115 yards the bullet is still moving at 2222 fps. Mr. Cutshaw also states that the SS-109/M-855 'breaks at the cannelure' to achieve its superior knockdown power. I am not an expert on the wound ballistics of the SS-109 bullet, however I wonder if Mr. Cutshaw wasn't referring to the older 55-grain ball ammunition. This ammunition, indeed, broke into two pieces at the cannelure. From what I understand many troopers are now using the Black Hills 77-grain match ammo in the field. According to Mr. Cutshaw this is to enhance the wounding capabilities of the .223 cartridge. This ammunition is loaded with the 77-grain Sierra Match King bullet. This bullet does not have a cannelure and does not incorporate the 'enhanced wounding' design features of the SS-109. As this bullet is heavier than the 62-grain SS-109, it does not achieve the same muzzle velocity. Sierra does not recommend this bullet or any 'Match King' bullet for hunting applications because they are not designed to expand. They are, however very accurate bullets with a high ballistic coefficient. They are not as susceptible to the wind at long range and I imagine they are good for blasting through brush. The 7.62 is obviously much more powerful than the 5.56. With proper bullet design stopping power would obviously be higher with the larger caliber. There is however no guarantee that those failures of the 5.56 to stop the enemy would have been cured by using the heavier cartridge. Often a deer continues to run after being hit solidly with a 30-06 rifle. The .5.56 cartridge is of course much lighter which allows a Soldier to carry much more. It is also more difficult to design a rifle weighing less than eight pounds around the larger cartridge. Incidentally, just because a cartridge is more powerful, that doesn't mean that it necessarily is better for long range shooting. Of course the terminal energy will probably be greater but the smaller cartridge may buck the wind better and/or shoot flatter. As an example look at the little 6mmBR cartridge loaded with the 107-grain Sierra Match King. This combination shoots flatter than the 7.62 and bucks the wind better - in fact it is almost the equal of the venerable .300 Winchester Magnum in every area except terminal energy. Yours, A freedom loving American" Former marine officer, Carlton Meyer writes that we need even more firepower for urban combat success: "I agree we shouldn't reconfigure infantry for the remote chance of more mountain warfare, but I don't see jungle warfare in the future either; it will be 90% urban warfare (as a percent of casualties). The big issue is body armor, retired Col Gallmeier who worked that issue says the Army is in for nasty surprise if it encounters a body armored opponent with its 5.56mm or even 7.62mm weapons. The tiny frags from a 20mm OIWC will have little effect too, remember our helmets can take 7.62mm rounds. Notice whenever a body armor clad Israeli Soldier is killed by gunfire, its always a head or neck shot. However, I agree that leaping to a new cartridge is a big step. I agree with the Marine Corps idea for one or two sharpshooters per squad, but I'd arm them with a .338 or an extra-light .50 cal. Not only for body armor, but doors, walls, cars, LAVs, and lastly, for sniping. There is an exploding Raufoss .50 round that I've read is frightening. And yes, one RPG equipped grunt per squad. And I'd add a new lightweight 7.62mm machine gun per squad too. Yes, this lots of extra weight, but I'd cut the three 5.56mm M249 machine guns out of each squad (that' a Marine Corps squad, I don't know what the Army uses) At 22 lbs each (loaded), I don't see the light 5.56mm MG adding much to the mix. Each squad would have two light 5.56mm rifle maneuver fire teams, and one weapons team with a 7.62mm MG, an RPG, and an extra-light .50 rifle" Phil West and a former Army enlisted Ranger and Army officer observe: "By 1945 the Germans had the tools they wanted for infantry, and considerable experiance knowing what worked. The best equipped squads would have one or two MG42s [medium machine guns] for their main offensive firepower. Most Soldiers would have an SMG or STG for manuver/CQB/Self defence -but, in most photos you'll see there was always at least one squad member that retained the Kar98 rifle. You see this in "Cross of Iron" in the warehouse scene -while the guys with automatic weapons keep the Russians back the rifleman takes his time and makes them count. Second historical thing The idea of intermediate rounds (optimised for 500m or less) was a German wartime concept. The usual explanation you see is that in most of the world visibility prevents shooting at more than this range. Since MGs and snipers routinely shoot at greater ranges, the accepted explanation is obviously wrong! By 1942 the German Army was very familar with alpine and desert fighting-and it is very "un-german" that these would not have been figured into developement of the intermediate rounds. My theory is this. It is accuracy not visibility that is the limiting factor. A 7.92mm or lesser bullet takes around a second to reach 600m. In that time an aware target can sprint 5-9m -you don't know which direction he will take, and he'll often be darting between cover. Your chance of hitting him with a single-aimed shot is virtually random. I think most shooting was less than 500m because most german riflemen knew there was little point shooting beyond this unless the foe didn't know you were there or you could fill an area of about 10m with bullets. A couple of friends confirm this with more recent experiences:- Friend A 'DOD did the same kinds of studies for all kinds of terrain, same result/conclusions; usual infantry engagement was 300 yards or less (didn't matter what you were armed with, typical infantry could not get hits at greater than 300m unless shooting volleys in mass or using machineguns. I was a former USMC National Match M-14 shooter and I can testify that even then the average infantryman was not going to get hits beyond 300m.) If you are under 1000m you call company or battalion mortars or MGs or Mark 19 (full-auto grenade launcher), artillary and air strikes are for better targets that are further off. The point is correct on not firing individual weapons at longer than 300m, you won't kill them and they can call fire down on you!' Friend B 'If you sight a target element that far away it is much more tactically feasible to call in artillery fire or an air strike thus saving your infantry the suicidal need for a half mile movement-to-contact. If you don't have fire support it is better to get closer before engagement to limit your target's tactical options. 500 to 700 meters gives them room to do just about anything. Especially if you have let them know you were there by shooting at them from that distance. They may HAVE fire support!!' I used to advocate that mountain units should be issued 7.62mm rifles likethe FAL for "more range" -but now I begin to rethink. If you are not shooting at 1000m, a 20-24" barreled M16 is less of a burden to carry up the mountain. The 7x45mm sabot round would solve performance -more carrying power, better terminal effects and less effected by cross winds. On the 5.56mm -best terminal effects are when the round fragments -for both the M193 and the M855 this is at less than 200m for a M16, 150m for a M4 and does not occur when fired from barrels under 14.5" -so how much use for defence is that 10" under the OICW? A smart fused 40mm grenade for the SACO Striker GMG already exists -with a reduced charge this should work in the M203 etc. As said, the AR15 is modular -you can change a M4 to a M16 by just drifting out a pin and changing the barrel and reciver top -no need to provide both M4s and M16s for every trooper" In any event, thorough research, rather then off the cuff generalized statements will produce quite a different view based on both sides of the argument. Another factor that is completely left out of the discussion is environmental conditions and how they relate and affect the ballistic performance of ammunition. It is scientific and mathematical fact that the same identical type of ammunition, even that drawn from the same production lot of ammunition will perform completely differently at differing altitudes, humidities, temperatures, and thousands of other factors. Real world results (Information coming from the soldiers in the field) are drastically different from the results achieved in a controlled laboratory environment, firing rounds into ballistic gelatin in a climate controlled doppler tunnel. .argus. As to your statement about M855 (SS109) penetrating a PASGT at 1100 meters, your OWN information (The link you provided) said it penetrated US Army Steel helmets at 1100 meters, which is a far cry from a PASGT, and the current issue helmets (SPEAR/ MICH series, TC2000, TC2001, TC2002) provide even greater protection than the PASGT. Also of interest, you may want to read FM 7-8 Rifle Squad, Change 1 FM 7-30 Infantry Brigade; Appendix J: Urban Operations FM 90-10-1 An Infantryman's Guide to Combat in Built-Up Areas, 12 MAY 1993 , CHANGE 1, 3 OCTOBER 1995 In any event .argus. Just by following links and info from the sources you provided, I was able to reinforce my statements. You should try it. As to the comment about BHD, and starting an argument, I did no such thing. Once again if you research you will find that the M855 (SS109)'s performance left something to be desired, and additionally just as currently you will find that Delta wasnt using M855, (untill ammunition became short.) they were using much more accurate and incidently heavier projectiles (Match grade non expanding Hollow Point Boat Tails) made by Sierra Bullets, as well as a few other types. I could post support information all day, but I'd really just like once for a couple of you guys to actually do a little research before attempting to blast someone with both barrels, especially when lots of your info is innaccurate or out dated. I dont discount anyones experience or views and opinions, however when it comes to technical and factual data, I will research what you provide as well as present my own information. But hey, Im just a soldier, what do I know anyway.

What I said was </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well your civilian glossary of terms is great<span id='postcolor'> Which is exactly what it is, I looked at your link. Not that you were a civilian. For all I know, you could be a SEAL, or a Delta Operator. (In which case you wouldnt be posting to this forum or talking about it, you know that whole OPSEC thing) I've been around the community (Special Operations Community for a number of years, and I have never heard, nor am I familiar with the term AFAIK. I do understand that there may be members of other then US operators posting here, and my experience and statements are from personal experience and knowledge of what the US if working with. Once again, if you will actually read my post, and the context in which the term was used (Coming back to an already downed target and shooting the bodies or wounded AGAIN, after having engaged and assualted through) You will see that this is completely different then even the source you just quoted, which is in fact a term common among Law enforcement personnel. All the info you provided about the Non Lethal weapons are also based on civilian technology and requirements, and the US Armed forces is only very recently becoming very involved in these types of systems. In fact the US Marine Corps. has the largest such training programs of all the services. (Probably something to do with the fact that they have Embassy guard duty, and are often forced to deal with non combatants.) Im not arguing either, nor do I have a misunderstanding, what I do see however is that people are quick to discount and attempt to disprove information without even reading the original statement carefully enough. Quoting from your own source: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The weapons employed are concussion grenades, flashbang devices, and conventional small arms. The tactics involve the so-called "double tap" - one bullet to the chest and one to the head.<span id='postcolor'> This is not a double tap, this is a normal engagement practice, and assaulting through the target, whether it be a fully auto burst to the chest and head, or a single shot to each. The "Illegal" double tap in the scenario you gave, would be when or if the operator returned to the target and pumped some more in the body, after having already cleared the area.

Well your civilian glossary of terms is great, and I'll save the link, but there is a difference between military lingo, Slangs and terms, and civilian lingo. Double Tap as it is applied to soldiers when used in the context as described, means returning to a target that was already engaged, or as SGTKopp stated, returning back to the objective area and pumping rounds into already downed targets. This practice is illegal whether or not the target is dead or alive. If the target is in fact already dead, then further crimes are commited by shooting the bodies. Mutilation for one.

Let me know if there is anything or anyone I missed. I dont want to leave anyone out, that would be rude. I can talk about this subject in as little or as much detail as you all would like, since it is after all how I make my living, but if people are going to get all indignant and argumentative, please email me, and we can continue there.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PFC_Mike Feb. 19 2003,04:32 http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/68-3388.asp this is by 1 SG Rudy Romero. scroll down to the part starting off "equipment wise"... I don't dispute the fact that there ARE many CQB situations that US forces will have to face, it's just that you still have to fight at distance. That's all I was saying.<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Miles Teg Feb. 19 2003,066 The term "shoulder fired" when used with a machine gun or rifle implies that it's fired from a standing or kneeling unsupported position. If the FM manuals say otherwise then that's cool, but unless you're pretty strong, you normally don't fire a medium machine gun like a rifle in the standing or kneeling position. Otherwise, in the prone position, on a tripod, or in a trench yes the butt of the weapon touches your shoulder. Also it should be noted that at least when I was in the Army they did teach hip firing techniques with the M60 at least. I'm sure they probably teach that for the heavier M240 simply because it's long and I imagine even more cumbersome then the M60 to fire like a rifle while assaulting. Even the smaller M249 SAW is a little cumbersome although it's light enough to be fired like a rifle...just not very comfortable doing so. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">.argus. Feb. 19 2003,174 The M855 has a straighter ballistic arch than the M80. The M855 is also able to penetrate the standard PASGT helmet out to 1100 meters, which is not only more than you will ever need, but also better than the penetration performance of the M80. Um, I think you are talking about the M80 here, as the M855 WILL fragment when it hits human flesh at velocities above 3500fps. The M80 on the other hand WILL pass straight through. Unless the target is overweight, then the bullet may tumble once before it exits. You might have heard about CAR-15s? With 10 inch barrels? You know, those barrels that reduce the effective range down to 50 meters, at best? AFAIK the Rangers that were using M16A2s with 20" barrels didn't have any problems taking down charging children and women.(at least not more problems than they would have had if they were using 7.62mm weapons, people don't drop instantly when shot by a 7.62mm weapon in the chest, heart included, upper spine on the other hand...) Most of the complaints regarding the m855s performance is related to the weapon it is being fired from. I assume you are joking? (you are, right?) On the issue of "scopes", it seems like some of you have some problems defining things: From dictionary: Sounds like a C79 to me. And 4x is perfectly useable as a scope on a sharpshooter rifle, just look at the ZF4. My original ignored point was that it felt odd that the SPW(which is what is says it is: SPECIAL purpose weapon), has a scope, while the weapons that could really take use of the scope does not. By the way, the SPW have even more felt recoil than the M249 SAW. <span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">as Damocles correctly stated, I DON'T work with firearms for a living. I've never even fired a gun in my life, BB guns and airguns included. So correct me if I'm wrong everybody but isn't it possible to...shoot...the...target..more...than...once? You ever hear of a double-tap? Anyway, I thought that 5.56mm NATO ammunition had a tendency to fragment after entry? I ought to go grab my copy of BHD (the book, not the movie...duh) and look it up, but I'm going to take a chance and say that the rangers and deltas were using armor-piercing rounds, which I would expect aren't going to kill ppl w/o vests as easily. As was stated before, there are many more ways to kill people at a distance than before, so I can understand a shift to smaller weapons. Like I said, if I'm wrong, correct me. Two final comments: which unit has the M249 SAW, NOT THE SPW and another, which is crazier, a $900 .50 cal revolver with insane recoil, or people who think that criminals, especially poor urban criminals, will consider it a weapon of choice?<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">.argus. Feb. 20 2003,17:52 So basically, he cannot be wrong? If I am wrong then he can just point out my errors. You can double tap but it won't do you much good at long range.. AFAIK, the Deltas and Rangers in Somalia were using "the armys new green tipped armor-piercing rounds". The M855 is the "armor piercing round", it is true that the M855 is more effective than the M193 when it comes to shooting through hard things, but basically the M855 is only a normal FMJ round with a steel penetrator. It only fragments a percentage or two less than the M193. The only other 5.56x45mm armor piercing round in the US inventory is the M995, but that is black tipped and not available at the time.<span id='postcolor'> Let me answer these in the order in which they were received. @PFC_Mike I read the link you posted, and as I suspected he was referring to targets far beyond the engagement range of ANY M16. The M16A2/M4 carbine firing M855 Ball (SS109) has a maximum effective range of 550 meters for a point target, and 880 meters for an area target. The ranges and engagements he was referring to were at indirect fire engagement ranges. (Hence the talk about mortars and air strikes) This is typical of desert type terrain with sparse vegetation. As to your comment about still having to fight at distance, if you will research, you will find that historically beginning with the use of bow and arrows, continuing through the use of muskets, and up to and including the use of modern smokeless powder firearms you will learn that engagement distances has actually become dramatically shorter, and continue to do so. This is why the US Army, and armies all over the world are devoting lots of time, money, and research to Close Quarters Battle, and the tools, equipment and technology that will allow success in this environment. @Miles teg The term “shoulder fired†does not at all imply that the weapon in question must be fire from the standing or kneeling unsupported position, but rather that the weapon is fired from the shoulder. This can be in the prone position (using the attached bipod), using a tripod from a crew served weapons position, or using natural elements such as a log, or a low wall to brace the weapon. I never said firing from the standing position, which has no bearing on whether a weapon is considered shoulder fired. Dragon missiles are shoulder fired, and they can only be fired one way. AT4s are shoulder fired, and they can be fired standing, kneeling, sitting, and prone. (All unsupported) While not making light of your service time and experience, I can tell you as a professional Non Commissioned Officer of 10 Ë years (And still active), not only have I never seen any hip shooting, or training of such with either the M60, or the M240B, I can tell you that this practice is frowned on. Not only is the firing uncontrolled and ineffective, there is a strong likelihood of wounding and killing friendly troops during assaults with the unpredictable sweep of the muzzle. I have seen NCOs lose their careers over less. FYI if you do a little research you will also find that until the advent of the M249 SAW, the M60 was considered a “light†machine gun, not a medium machine gun. In Ranger squads SAW gunners are referred to as “Automatic Riflemen†@ .argus. With the first statement reference M855 vs. M80 (which is 7.62mm not 5.56mm) was there a point in there somewhere you were trying to make?? My statement was involving the kinetic energy and retained velocity of a lightweight projectile (the 62 grain M855) Vs the kinetic energy and retained velocity of a heavier projectile with a better ballistic coefficient (a 175 grain .308 caliber projectile such as M118LR) My information is supported by physics and science and countless hours of collected data. As to the claim that M855 can penetrate a PASGT helmet at 1100 meters, I’d love to see the data. Additionally, since that is well beyond the maximum effective range of M855, again I fail to see the point behind that statement. If you can hit a target the size of a PASGT at 1100 meters with M855, then you need to try out for the US Army Service Rifle Team. I can give you the Coach, and the NCOICs phone number and email address. Send pictures. In your OWN statement you claim that M855 will fragment when it hits human tissue at velocities above 3500 FPS. Considering that M855 has a muzzle velocity of 3300 FPS at the muzzle and about 2985 FPS at 25 meters… Well what was your point again? (Values as measured thousands of times at the USAMU Ammunition Test Facility, Parks Range, Fort Benning Georgia, US Army Infantry Center and School. Measured by Oehler Cronograph systems, and SUIS ASCOR electronic target systems, providing muzzle, in flight, and downrange data collection.) Oh and bones, not fat are what disturbs the stabilization of a projectile and causes tumbling. An overweight person would actually be more likely to survive a gunshot would as fat cells, and the human body in general are largely water, and water absorbs and redistributes energy extremely efficiently. CAR-15s where also using M193 (55 grain, copper jacketed lead, no steel penetrator) Or 9mm Parabelum, Rangers didn’t have them, and Delta were using XM177s, with Optical Sights and spitzer bullets, not M855. The Rangers had lots of problems with killing and incapacitating targets that were all on a narcotic, further reducing the effectiveness of the 62 grain steel penetrator. As to the question of whether or not I may be joking, absolutely not, you should do some more research. Just following the links regarding M855 Ball you’ll discover all manner of information on calibers being evaluated to replace the 5.56mm because of its poor performance. The M249 Was intended to replace the M60 as the machine gun in Infantry Platoons. This was immediately reworked immediately after fielding, due to the lack of firepower provided by the 5.56mm, even when fired fully automatic. The question of scopes etc, and dictionary definitions. The definition of which we are speaking, is one as is applied to military applications. That said, a “scope†and an “optical sight†are quite different animals. An aimpoint is a reflex optical sighting device, and not a scope. It provides no magnification, and the “lense†serves only as the surface on which to display to “death dot†@PFC_Mike Yes soldiers can and do often shoot targets more then once during engagements. However double tapping is illegal. The laws of land warfare, and the Geneva convention preclude this from being legal. Double tapping, is not shooting a target multiple times, it is walking up to an already down target and shooting them again. Hence double tapping. @.argus. Certainly I can be wrong, however I am sharing facts that I base on actual documentation and experience. I am confident that anyone actually taking the time to RESEARCH, rather then spouting off, will find lots of the info Im referring to. Double Tap at long range? Hmmm The Rangers were in fact using M855 Ball (Green Tip) and the Deltas were not. At least not until they were forced to consolidate ammunition with the Rangers as the operation and firefights wore on into hours past the operations conclusion time. Armor piercing round?? I believe I referred to the M855 as having and being a “steel penetrator†which it in fact is.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC_Mike @ Feb. 19 2003,02:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ok, I'll take your word on the fading propensities of desert camouflage. The post about HK pack OPFOR did include a shot of the "fundamentalist" weaing 3-color pants. anyway, which unit has the stock M249 (no scope)? and a couple things about the downshift in bullet sizes first, it seems kind of obvious that special forces need to kill them right away, not wait for them to bleed to death AFTER FIRING ONE LAST, FATAL SHOT. and I know that .223 improves the chances that Joe Reservist will hit a target, but most SF are probably pretty good shots so I doubt it's a real issue. In Afghanistan during the Tora Bora fighting a lot of people complained that they just couldn't hit the taliban/al-qaida forces at the distances they were firing becuase they were too high up. so urban combat isn't necessarily the new trend. Also, I may be wrong about this, but I thought that smaller rounds like the 5.56 and 5.45 were better able to punch through vests and such, as well as travel farther? they probably make smaller holes though.<span id='postcolor'> Mike, I just have a couple of questions since you sound like you are talking from your fourth point of contact rather then a knowledge base there Airborne. Where do you get your information from? Do you actually research anything at all? How many weapons development projects have you been involved with? You are aware that what you do when oh lets say for instance, searching caves in... lets say Afghanistan, its Close Quarters Battle? As to the not hitting things at distance... Thats what happens to ballistic object only weighing 62 grains (with poor concentricity due to the steel penetrator) when it is affected by gravity and wind, it loses energy and retains velocity poorly... Conversely, a heavier projectile, such a 175 grain (or better) .308 caliber bullet has a better Ballistic coefficient, and will retain velocity (thusly energy) at a greater distance. (you can learn about these things using something we like to call in the business MATH) In Tora Bora the problem wasnt HITTING the targets, it was keeping them down, M855 ball is overstabilized and will pass cleanly through human tissue, often times leaving a wound cavity small enough that it will actually seal itself preventing blood loss for a short period of time, during which the enemy is still combat effective. You may have heard about this problem before; In a Country called Somalia, in a City called Mogadishu, right around 1993. Smaller rounds often penetrate well yes, but leave much smaller wound cavities. Its kind of immaterial if you punch someones vest and they still kill you because the werent even knocked off their feet. Oh did I mention they were doing LOADS of house to house clearing and fighting in Afghanistan? Theres photos all over the news and net... You may not be aware of this, but even tribal people live in houses these days, whether they be mud huts or new fangled steel construction. My apologies if I came off as a little abraisive...