Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

dreday

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    360

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by dreday

  2. Posted

    AFAIK berets are most commonly worn during prazdnikey (parade's) , i could be wrong about this. I have seen photos of VDV in excercises with berets standing to attention (recent photos) so I am not sure about soviet vdv times.

    You are absolutely correct! Berets do look cool, but they are way to impractical to be worn in the field. You will see plenty of pictures of VDV troopers with berets during the high profile exercises, but almost none in Afghanistan/Chechnya. In 1985 they would have either worn a helmet if deployed by land (although helmets were generally not issued to the VDV at the time) or a field hat(pilotka)/jump helmet if deployed by plane.

    Peace,

    DreDay

  3. Posted

    Its odd that more such attacks didn't happen. If Saddam's generals had any sense they would have bought huge amounts of those ATGM's (rather than blowing money on tanks they knew were obsolete)

    It's not a matter of the generals having (or not) any sense. The simple matter of fact is that Iraq was under a severe arms embargo post 1991. They might have been able to procure a small number of the advanced ATGMs on a black market, but certainly no "huge amounts". Thus for better or worse, they had to fight with what they had built up in 1980s for their conventional war with Iran...

    Peace,

    DreDay

  4. Posted

    this supressor thing is killing me cause NSX contacted me and we discussed this in lenght.

    He said hes a former officer and reads many of the russian arms amgs and he clearly remembers that he read about reports about usage of a pbs type on Ak-74s aswell, PBS-3 or 4 it seems.

    Well im as clueless as before now, can anyone call the FSB and ask?

    Hehe, I hear ya. I do not want to doubt NSX's credibility, but I would also say that I am very wary of Internet Warrior Syndrome. If this gentleman is able to say that he had personally seen/used the silenced AK-74; or better yet produce pictures of it - I would gladly admit that I am in the wrong. For now however, there is absolutely zero evidence that points to this fact and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

    If you are fluent in Russian, I will try to dig up a couple of the online sources for you. I also have not forgotten about the pictures of VDV patches hat I had promised to you guys smile_o.gif

    On a side note, I am very impressed with the dedication to realism that your mod has shown. I have tried to explain the same issue with the AK-74 suppressor to several other respected mods, but my suggestions had fallen on deaf ears.

    Respect,

    DreDay

  5. Posted

    hmm well since the end of the rifle for an aks-74 and that for a 74m are practically identicle there should be no reason that it could not be used for it and if not a little machining could easily fix that i just think its much more common to use the aks-74u silenced since its silencer is much quieter and more effective than the pbs or really than most silencers

    I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say, but the Russians do not deploy any supressors/silencers on the AK-74 or AK-74M. That's a fact. Even though there is a supressed version of the AKSU, it has largely been seen as a failure; it has been made in very small numbers and I don't belive that it has ever been deployed in combat. The balistics of the 5.45 bullet are not well suited for the sound supression. That is why the Russians had to take the route of deisgning a whole new family of 9x39mm subsonic rounds (i.e. SP-5 and SP-6 for AS/VSS).

    Peace,

    DreDay

  6. Posted

    @Shadow NX

    At special operations they won't wear any patch.

    they usually wear on left this

    confused_o.gif )

    VDV+spetznas video

    If that info is correct then the riddle is finally solved, so the specific units patch just replaces the russian flag patch and on the other side they have the usual branch patch.

    But i have my doubts couse on the pic by Leptailurus the setup is a different one.

    Oh and thanks for the video, really intresting stuff there.

    Shadow,

    You are basically correct, the new set-up (circa mid 2006) is that the flag patch on the left is replaced by the unit patch, while the unit patch on the right is replaced by the branch of service patch.

    Unfortunately both the unit and the branch of service patches are undergoing redesign at this moment so you will see different patches depending on when or where the pictures were taken.

    I am super busy at work right now, but I will try to post some sample pictures this evening (EST).

    Peace,

    DreDay

  7. Posted

    Great work! The only thing that stands out to me (besides the AKM muzzle compressor) is that the Russians do not mount the PBS-3 suppressor on AK-74, it was designed strictly for the AKSU - and even then it is extremely rare. In fact no suppressor is mounted on the AK-74.

    Peace,

    DreDay

  8. Posted

    Yes I know, the problem is that in like 90% of the pictures I have available in fact the muzzle is the one I made. Try making a search on google for AKM or AKMS and you will see what I mean.

    But I can change this easily, can anyone confirm this?

    Yep, I know exactly what you mean. I was quite surprised as well when I saw it on google. However, I can also tell you that 90% of the Soviet/Warsaw Pact pictures from the 60s and 70s show the AKMs with the slant muzzle compensator....

    The compensator is removable, so perhaps the google pictures show the rifles that have had it removed?

    Anyways, maybe both versions could be included in your pack?

    Peace,

    DreDay

  9. Posted

    Gentlmen,

    Great work. I truly appreciate what you are doing for the OFP community. However, I do have a small criticism. Please note that all of the AKM/AKMSs (except for the earliest models) have a slant muzzle break in order counter the climb in automatic fire.

    AKMBreak.jpg

    akm_gp25.jpg

    This is the most visually distinguishable difference between the AK and AKM

    Peace,

    DreDay

  10. Posted

    To the OP,

    This issue has already been discussed here qiuite a few times.  In fact, it was in discussion here long before the game had even come out.  

    The supression fire is not modelled because the BIS were unable to model it.  It's not like they don't realize that it is realistic and/or "cool". It's just that they did not have enough time and resources to do it.

    It is a much needed feature; we all know it - join the club!

    Peace,

    DreDay

  11. Posted

    Quote[/b] ] Or that T-72 can also fire ATGM which ArmA does not have....

    ArmA seems to depict the M/M1 model of the T-72 which does not fire an ATGM in the real life either.

    Quote[/b] ]Sabot is more effective but third world countries against which US fought dont even have sabot rounds.....

    I think that what you had meant to say is that they don't have modern/advanced sabots.

    Peace,

    DreDay

  12. Posted

    That's the survivability/visibility trade off that Mil Design chose when designing the helicopter. I can tell you that visibility sucks in the Ka50 and it completely lacks all the high tech avionics that it relies on so heavily.

    Just a small note - KA-50 was designed by the Kamov Design Berau, not Mil (hence the name).

    I also agree with HavocDemon that its glass should be able take a few 12.7 rounds, but probably no more than a dozen (even less if they hit close to each other).

    Peace,

    DreDay

  13. Posted

    It´s like putting your chess computer on highest skill. Will you win ? Will you even come close to win ?   tounge2.gif

    I see your point, but I don't think that the chess analogy is a good one. There are way more controlling variables in ArmA than they are in chess. Let's say that you are playing against the stellar AI, you might still be successful if you have an advantage in terrain and or firepower on your side.

    Besides, the AI could be programmed to have the human-like weakness (i.e. state of shock/panic) that will limit its perfection.

    While strong AI might present a problem for some; personally I would love to have that problem. Unfortunately we are nowhere close to that...

    Peace,

    DreDay

  14. Posted

    High density of small arms fire, while far from ideal, can still be extremely effective against even the latest breed of attack helicopters. This was vividly demonstrated by the the failed attack of the 11th Aviation Helicopter Regiment against the suspected positions of the Medina Division around Karbala, Iraq in the March of 2003.

    And you think it was the small arms fire which caused so much damage that 30 *armored* attack helicopters had to retreat? Yeah, sure.

    No, it was more than just small arms fire. Iraqis are also believed to have used some light AAA and truck-mounted machine-guns. However it is believed that the small arms fire and RPGs were responsible for much of the damage. More importantly, the high volume of small arms fire (which could not be immediately located and taken out unlike the AAA and gun trucks) had prevented the regiment from fighting in formation. Essentially, the AH-64s were forced fight their battles individually and not as a coherent fighting force due to the magnitude and multiple directions of the incomming small arms fire.

    Peace,

    DreDay

  16. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]We lost 4900 Hueys during Vietnam. Our loss ratio to small arms fire has dropped by more than a factor of a hundred thnnks to the Blackhawk's survivability improvements.

    I doubt that the survivability improvements are the major reason for less helicopters downed due to small arms fire. It probably has 99% to do with the nature of both combatants, their operating procedures, and training than anything nuts-n-bolts about the aircraft.

    So you think ballistic armor, ballistic glass, redundant systems all are trivial in the grand scheme of things when comparing a totally unarmored second generation transport like a UH-1 with a third generation transport like the UH-60 Blackhawk which was designed with the ability to absorb small arms fire as a primary requirment?

    I don't think that he is saying that. However I do believe that you greatly overestimate the survivability of the UH-60. It's primary requirement is not to absorb small arms fire, but rather to lift-off, to fly fast and far, and to carry a good amount of soldiers and supplies; which pretty much precludes it from absorbing large amounts of small arms fire.

    Don't get me wrong, the UH-60 is the best air-assault helicopter in the world today; however I don't believe that it would last significantly longer than a UH-1 (or Mi-8) in a hot LZ.

    In the past I have had a chance to talk with several Blackhawk pilots; and while they loved their birds they were also very realistic (at the time I thought pessimistic) about their chances of surviving enemy fire.

    Peace,

    DreDay

  17. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]We lost 4900 Hueys during Vietnam. Our loss ratio to small arms fire has dropped by more than a factor of a hundred thnnks to the Blackhawk's survivability improvements.

    I doubt that the survivability improvements are the major reason for less helicopters downed due to small arms fire. It probably has 99% to do with the nature of both combatants, their operating procedures, and training than anything nuts-n-bolts about the aircraft.

    Exactly! Not to mention, that the intensity of combat in Iraq is much much lower (thank God!wink_o.gif that it ever was in Vietnam...

    Peace,

    DreDay

  18. Posted

    Daniel @ June 14 2007,01:42)]
    Quote[/b] ]Comparing the armor on the systems of a Blackhawk and comparing the armor on a Vietnam vintage Huey is like comparing a the armor on a T-34 with a T-72.

    Oh, I'm sorry did I compare the two? I don't believe I did. My post was solely aimed at the poster who claimed to be a Blackhawk pilot and further claimed that the U.S. Army instructs soldiers not to engage attacking aircraft with small arms.

    Surely you wouldn't open fire with small arms. You'd get into cover, defalde, hard cover, whatever, and wait for friendly Air or AA assets to deal with the threat. Combined Arms, is what it's all about, using different assets to fill the gaps in your defences. No point pitting infantry against a system designed to easily destroy infantry.

    In a perfect world you could very well wait for the AA and Air support; but if neither one is available than the infantry would have to engage the helicopters with what they have and that includes the small arms.

    High density of small arms fire, while far from ideal, can still be extremely effective against even the latest breed of attack helicopters. This was vividly demonstrated by the the failed attack of the 11th Aviation Helicopter Regiment against the suspected positions of the Medina Division around Karbala, Iraq in the March of 2003.

    Peace,

    DreDay

  19. Posted

    Luciano:
    Quote[/b] ]The reason why is because the AI is very simple.  

    Your expecting the simple AI to do complex things.  There needs to be lots of changes to the AI before they shoot down choppers with small arms.  

    banghead.gif

    I suppose you must be a real nerd do change these values !

    ...

    I think that these values effect how likely a helicopter is to attack those soldiers, not the other way around.

    In any case, I think that what Luciano had meant to say was that the decission on whether or not to engage a helicopter should incorporate a lot of the complex variables in a real life, which is something that the current state of ArmA AI does not simulate very well. I think that we can all agree on that.

    Peace,

    DreDay

  20. Posted

    And how many instances of helicopters actually being shot down "all the time" by small arms fire can you think of?

    Plenty... There are multiple examples of helicopters being brought down by small arms fire in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Iraq.

    What's more important is that the high density of fire from the small arms is likely to damage the helicopter, or at least to prevent it from fulfilling its mission even though it is likely to survive.

    That's how things work in the real world. However, I do understand the argument of those who say that it would not be a good idea in ArmA.

    Peace,

    DreDay

  22. Posted

    It would be a realistic feature. However it would be offset by a fact that no one would ever use it...

    I think that most people, myself included, would rather take a chance of firing an unintentional shot over not being able to fire when your life depends on it.

    Peace,

    DreDay

  23. Posted

    Well, after a half hour of searching I found a topic on it, but it only listed one combination of settings. Could someone direct me to a topic with more?

    I have to admit that the search was not as effective as I had originally assumed. Here is a thread that talks about a different (probably more elegant) way of effecting AI performance:

    New way to improve the AI?

    As for ArmaProfile, I agree with troop. You have to experiment with what works for you. The realism of the settings would depend on the training and experience levels that you want the AI to simulate.

    Personally, I like .35 for precision and 1.0 for skill.

    Peace,

    DreDay

  25. Posted

    Rockets could loose speed over distance and should loose armor penetration capacity decreasing the damage the longer they travel?

    Not quite... Almost all RPGs have HEAT warheads. They do not rely on velocity to penetrate the armour; so they don't really loose any penetration potential over distance.

    Peace,

    DreDay

×