Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX

Hi Walker. Yeah, I saw that 'The power of Nightmares, the rise of the politics of Fear' series too. I also saw 'Operation Hollywood', 'Mission Accomplished', 'Unprecedented', 'The world According to Bush' and 'The Jesus Factor.' "So like the commies the NeoConMen hate individual liberty what you and me call freedom and the NeoConMen prefer colectivism which is another word for social cohesion." Well, not exactly what Communism entails. I would not say that NeoCons would advocate "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." They are strongly into individual ownership and business. What they dont want is everyone's politics and morality being 'liberal' - liberty. They certainly do NOT want everyone having equal social and economic status. Now, I agree with you that the government in the USSR was not communist; but I do not see how you can then say that the NeoCons are communist just because they are a more radical group inside a larger group. Their politics, social theories and morality are completely different (and usually opposed to) communism. I disagree with your conclusion, and especially with the implication that they are somehow subverting religion which you are implying is good. Blind faith is exactly what allows this kind of thing. 'Intelligence of religious thought'! Ha! Theres an oxymoron. I think the problem is that you are using the word communist as if the government which presided over the USSR were communist. In everything but name, they were not.

Although I pretty much agree with walker, I dont understand the 'commie' comments. As far as I understand it the Neo-conservatives are about as far away politically and philosophically from communists as it is possible to get. Explanation? Did I miss it earlier in the thread?

Bwaaaahahahahahahhahahahahah No.

Nonetheless, it is not just an FPS. H&D is a tactical first person WWII shooter (which you can put into third person) OFP has mods which are tactical first person WWII games (and you can disable 3rd person) - and it IS first person. WWIIOnline is a MMOFPS - and its tactical DoD is a slightly tactical WWII shooter FPS. Saying BiA is the only first person tactical shooter is a blatant lie. Fact.

I agree. If the fanatics on all sides would realise that their myths are no different than the myths of the other side, they'd stop trying to attack the infidels/ pagans/ whatever.

Neither the OICW nor the XM8 are guns.

Well technically BiA is not purely an FPS either, there is that third person 'situational awareness' view. Another tactical FPS in WWII: Hidden and Dangerous 1,2 and expansions. DoD - ok they are humans, but its still a tactical FPS, to an extent Red Orchestra - which has AI now. WWII mods for OFP WWII online. Saying BiA is the only first person tactical shooter is a blatant lie. Fact.

Non-standard keybinding? Anyone who tries to play any game without first having a look at the key bindings is an idiot, plain and simple.

From Red Alert : Hell March Cannon Fodder theme

higher is smoother

The extra weight isn't so much that the rifle becomes unusable or anything like that, its just unnecessary.

I don't think the SA80 is actually in consideration, it has too bad a reputation (deserved or not) i think iraq has given the the SA80A2 a new better rep than before, tho the magazine fiasco in afghanistan did'nt help It has a much better reputation for reliability, but it still has the other major failings - too heavy, outdated gas system, difficult to clean, etc.

I don't think the SA80 is actually in consideration, it has too bad a reputation (deserved or not)

Well, if you look back at how this was brought up, the original point - which you disagreed with - was that anyone can be taught to shoot accurately (although some aren't, because it would take too long, MOST are - the crux of the arguement), which is why accurate rifles are important. Again I must register amazement at these standards - people can actually pass if they cannot hit any 300m targetry? And you still say the teaching is excellent? So why, according to you, can't they shoot? Again, NOT what I said. "rounds hitting nowhere near the enemy position don't suppress." If a soldier is such a bad shot, then they WONT hit anywhere near the enemy position - rounds hitting a few hundred metres away - which is what will happen if they miss high or low - do not suppress the enemy and detract from efficiency. Again with the egg sucking. This is extremely basic stuff. Recruit level training, and not even relevant. When I replied to you and told you I had served in the military, but you kept on talking about things I'd expect a 2 day recruit to know, then you were, in fact, 'trying to teach your granny how to suck eggs.' Maybe the US trains in untimed low pressure environments. The British do not. Strawman. I'm no maths genius, but I'm pretty sure that 24 out of 40 is nowhere near your quoted 85% of targetry hit. So is it possible to pass the US test without being an accurate shot? Going on what you just said, yes it is. ....but they are not.... so it's not relevant. I understand you can switch out the barrel on an M16 to fit the "reciever" to a .50 cal barrel. That doesn't mean that the penetration and accuracy of that round should be used when you are talking about standard assault rifles and their replacements, which is what this topic is about. Light support weapon. Its not a machine gun. It is used as a light support weapon more often, usually kept with the base of fire, or provide larger volumes of fire. yes, good. No, it uses the SUSAT (Sight Unit Small Arms Trilux) in conjunction with the CWS (Common Weapon Sight) for some individuals at night. On the contrary, that is what the topic is about: Standard issue Rifle A vs standard issue rifle B. You can't say its unfair to compare the G36 and the M16 because the G36 is not made of steel. The M16, as standard, does not come equipped with the ACOG. I have never shot using a bench, sling support (as in the apparatus that is worn when prone, not the standard sling for hanging the weapon off the body when not in use), and I've never seen a military competition shoot that was not timed. A great deal of them involve running as well. Maybe. Maybe it was a fluke. Did he do it again next time? Can he do it consistently? Still - its not changing anything - the M16 is not the most accurate rifle in the world (and I doubt the SA80 is nowadays either) Again, nobody has said that they should be. The entire point you started arguing against was my assertion that accurate rifles are not unnecesary because 'the soldiers can't shoot as accurately as the rifle anyway'. Thats not true. But an accurate rifle is a hell of a lot more use than an inaccurate one. Its a lot easier to suppress an enemy with an accurate rifle than with an inaccurate one. Again, strawman. Nobody except you is talking about untimed bench shooting. Nor do the targets we train on I don't know what will win it, but it won't be the SA80 (even if the A2 were as wonderful as H&K say it is, it would still never win- too many flaws in the design. )

Use OFPwatch and you won't need to worry about which addons you do or dont need.

Yes. I didnt say it was easy, I said 'anyone can be taught to shoot accurately.' Well, the quality of the teacher does have a significant effect. I did not say what you seem to think I did. Some people are naturally good shots; some arent, some learn quickly, some dont. However, anyone can be taught to shoot accurately, although not exceptionally. All british serving personel get trained and tested every year on rifle handling skills. Everyone in uniform is a rifleman first and a specialist second. I know most branches of the US military do things differently, but thats irrelevant. It amazes me that a lot of US military figures seem to think you can be proficient with a weapon but unable to hit what you are aiming at. Brassing up the area looks good in films, but does little in real life. Accurate fire is needed in engaging AND in suppresing the enemy - rounds hitting nowhere near the enemy position don't suppress. Please stop telling me how to suck eggs. I've competed at national and international shoots. I know how to shoot. And again, this may apply to the US army, but not to other professional armies. How can you pass the test without being accurate? Is the test simply firing the weapon randomly down the range?? as individuals? Or as a fire team? I was talking about individual shooting. Fire teams can engage well past that distance. That must be nice for him. Not really relevant to issued rifles though, is it? Again, I didn't say it wasn't accurate, just not as accurate, 1) The M16 doesn't use clips, it uses magazines. 2) Grouping size is usually measured in millimetres or inches. A head is actually quite a big size for a group, even at 200m. I've seen group sizes for 10 rounds (although we normally group with 5 rounds) at the size of a thumbnail. Thats at 100m though. And that wasn't remarkable, just quite good. *please don't someone jump in with some remark about the rounds being similar. They are both 5.56, nominally 5.56 NATO and both similar dimensions, but the American ammunition is slightly different to the ammunition used by the British (slightly more propellant, AFAIR - so it causes stoppages in rifles not designed for it)

Soldiers: heroes of WWII definitely uses the starforce crap, so that shows you that you cannot even trust the publishers to tell you when it is being used.

Where are the pics? I now have a scar running through my eyebrow, and a darker patch on my cheekbone. Really not noticable though. They do show up more when its really cold or when I'm drunk.

1) Actually, I might be wrong on that; depending on the definition of free floating. The stock does lock in around the gas parts, but its not bonded or anything. 2) Fine, but the SA80 is capable of hitting a man in the chest at 500m (or even 600m for the LSW) 3)Someone will have to do the test (properly) and see. Given that the british shooting team usually beats the American one, though, my money is on the SA80.

1) It doesn't have a free floating barrel 2) Maybe the US army are all terrible shots, I don't know; but I don't think so. Anyone can be taught to shoot accurately - it can take longer for some, and some are naturally good at it - but its just nonsense to say that accurate rifles are not important. 3) It is a fact that the M16 is less accurate than the SA80, regardless of what you think about weight on the barrel.

It doesnt. Thats what half the outcry has been about. I also sincerely hope that starforce stops being used. I couldnt play "soldiers - Heroes of WWII" because of it - and I had a legit copy. I had to go find a workaround the stupid starforce to get the legal copy to work - introducing a lot of 'dubious' websites to me - which for many people would actually encourage piracy, once they are driven to the site by the non-working anti-piracy crap.

The boots are crap for deserts. There is an extremely technical solution to using radios inside tanks and being able to hear them - headphones and mics Regarding the SA80: It has good and bad points. Good points: Its accurate. More accurate than the M16 series. Its quite short -which is good It makes an excellent club. The sling design on the rifle is good - again much better than the M16 Bad points: Compared to any other modern rifle, its phenomenally heavy. The LSW weighs pretty much what a PARA MINIME weighs, AFAIR. And the A2 is even heavier. The gas system is antiquated, evn on the A2. The G36 gas system beats it hands down. It builds up far too much carbon far too quickly. Its difficult and fiddly to clean. It is not, however, that unreliable in and of itself. What makes it unreliable (and I'm talking about both the A1 and the A2) is obsessive over-cleaning. It actually works better when a few rounds have been fired through it. Over cleaning also makes it get dirty quicker, and creates a great deal of wear and tear on the rifle... making it worn out and unreliable.

Hmmm. I live elsewhere now but this is really where I'm from: Lat: 57:39:41N (57.6613) Lon: 3:04:27W (-3.0742) Stick me in please!

Another mortar shoot, this time in England. Snow. Storms. Cold. No gloves allowed. This is setting up of the mortars, which is why noone is wearing helmets or webbing, and the brown boxes behind are ammunition boxes. Photo waas taken at about 6 AM My det, my mortar. Ammunition has not been conditioned yet (taken out of the packaging and made ready to fire), which is why its not there. Firing a round. HE in this case. We are bedding in, which is why we are standing on the baseplate and legs and why the sight is off. We were not the only ones using the training area.... In fact the car park was quite full.

Scenery en route to the furthest North and West point on the UK mainland. Ditto Tents, where we stayed for a while. Non-tactical shoot. (as in; no camoflage used) VERY windy. The mess tent still blew away despite all the ropes and sandbags. It was too windy to fire for days. A few hundred rounds on high charge + extremely soft ground = big hole. All the mortars were at least this deep by the end of the shoot. Had to dig down beside it to get at the sight, and also dig a trench to see the aiming post through the sight. Ended up well above the muzzle when firing, and very close to it. Blast ripped my helmet cover off, and I scorched all the hair on the back of my neck. Fun though. N.B. - This is not my mortar - its another det's one, but the holes are pretty much the same. The guys are unhappy because they know they are going to have to dig the thing out soon. It took a long time.