dreday
-
Content Count
360 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by dreday
-
-
defensive grenades ? i've seen smoke, CS gas, stun, and training nades, but never seen a real life defensive nads, those thing are in general a underpowered nades which in theory will do less damage/ less likely to kill ppl, which IMO is ballocksThat's not quite correct, as it was said before - "defensive" grenades are not intended for self-defense. They are intended for use from defensive positions (i.e. trenches). Therefore, they are actually more powerful than the "offensive grenades" since their operators don't have to worry about getting caught in their own shrapnel.
Peace,
DreDay
hum i get it now, but the use of "offencive" and "defencive" do make some confusion
Agreed, I think something along the lines of "high powered" and "low/mid powered" would have been more intuitive.
Peace,
DreDay
-
Quote[/b] ]the difference between offensive and defensive hand grenades are normally how heavy they are, how many fragments they produce, their "effective" range. i think that there were some RHS addons that had the two inFusing, also, I think - Russian defensive grenades are impact-fused, while offensive are timed - I think (operational word being "think").
Cameron,
They are both impact-fused. In fact they both use the same fuse/detonator. However they will only explode 1.2 -1.8 seconds after being activated (to give the operator some safe distance) and they self-liquidate after 3.2 -4.2 seconds.
Peace,
DreDay
-
defensive grenades ? i've seen smoke, CS gas, stun, and training nades, but never seen a real life defensive nads, those thing are in general a underpowered nades which in theory will do less damage/ less likely to kill ppl, which IMO is ballocksThat's not quite correct, as it was said before - "defensive" grenades are not intended for self-defense. They are intended for use from defensive positions (i.e. trenches). Therefore, they are actually more powerful than the "offensive grenades" since their operators don't have to worry about getting caught in their own shrapnel.
Peace,
DreDay
-
All this talk of how many clay dummies these things can save makes me wonder why, if they are so guaranteed to stop X number of bullets from calibre Y gun at Z metres range, why oh why can't they show us some videos of human testers really demonstrating their confidence in the product? ;o)I can answer that question with one word - liability. Â BTW, I agree with your other points.
Peace,
DreDay
-
U.S. WWII doctrine involves engagement ranges of 300+ metres and proved decidely unfavourable against Soviet Doctrine in both Korea and Vietnam.The core element of a U.S. fireteam in WWII was a large calibre rifle.
The core element of a Soviet fireteam in WWII was the SMG, soon after the war to be replaced by the Assault Rifle.
Strangely after 2 wars against Soviet tactics, America switched from rifles with expected enagement ranges of 300 metres to lighter calibre assault rifles with expected engagement ranges of 150 metres.
Prior to direct involvement with the Soviet model, the U.S. had ignored the assault rifle completely and continued to focus on large calibre rifles, upgrading the Garrand M1 to the M14.
It is of note that after Korea and Vietnam, the Soviets did not abandon their SMG's and Assault rifles in favour of a heavier calibred rifle mimicing the U.S.'s success with the M14.
The introduction of the M4 has moved American Doctrine even closer to the WWII Soviet devised model.
The WWII Soviet Infantry Doctrine is the father of modern infantry tactics.
Their experience in this form of combat is far greater than our own.
Baff1,
You are way off. Here are just a few of many factual errors that you make in your post:
-Soviets had never used the concept of fireteams in WWII, nor for many years after
-All infantry doctrines (including the Soviet one) call for their squads to engage the enemy to at least 300 meters.
-It is highly debatable that the NK infantry tactics were superior to those of the US Army or Marines. In case of NVA/VC you might have a point, but their tactics were not based on a Soviet model.
-M16 have an engagement range of way more that 150 meters
-The adaption of AKs by the Soviets was influenced by their encounters with the German StG44. So by your logic, it should follow the Soviets had copied the German infantry doctrine...
I could go on, but I really don't' see the point...
Peace,
DreDay
-
Sinperdoc,
This is a quote from your original post:
"...I'm not saying that it's not an intimidating weapon... well actually that is what I'm saying... I'm saying that people just aren't impressed when you try to hold them at bay with an AK47/74 anymore in the mid-east."
I think that these are the words that Blaschiow was referring to. I am not entirely sure what you were trying to say here; but it came of sounding like you don't consider AK fire to be a serious threat. That's a very odd statement to make; even more so, since your job is to save lives that were endangered by this weapon.
Peace,
DreDay
-
To the OP,
I really don't see what issues you have with my post. I was responding to your statement that AK-74 are inaccurate past 100m and that no one fears AKs, period. I had pointed out that both of these facts are erroneous.
That does not mean that AK is the most accurate weapon out there, or that all the contractors are rushing out to get one.
Peace,
DreDay
-
DreDay44 mm is the NIJ limit
there was a recent test comparing Interceptor with Dragon Skin that was commissioned by NBC broadcasting over worries that the Army wasn't giving the troops the best armor.
Dragon skin trauma never exceeded 30mm (in some cases, it was under 20 mm), while interceptor exceeded 40 mm a couple times and never was under 30 mm.
35mm will give you a big bruise, but you'll still be ok
guyguy1,
Thanks for your information. It is very interesting indeed. Is there any chart detailing the relationship between the dents in ballistic clay and the RL injuries? I was under impression that Iraq experience has shown that the 30mm+ mark might be too high, as there were a lot of injuries to the bones and body organs.... From what I've read, Russians are using the 10mm limit...
Peace,
DreDay
-
In theorie Body armor looks good, in reality it leads to polytraumatic injuries, just preventing you from beeing chalked up as KIA.Not dragon skin, That frickin crap is scary.
I forget what I was watching, but they straped a dragon skin vest onto a dummy, shot a few bullets into it, none of them pierced through.
Then for good measure they laid the dummy with the vest ontop of a grenade and blew it up. STILL it didnt pierce through.
Yeah, but did they show how much impact it had on the clay dummy itself? A lot of damage can be done to the subject wearing the vest without actually penetrating the vest.
Peace,
DreDay
-
I have shot with of several AK-family rifles including Norinco's AK47 semi-auto guns that they sold to the civilian market. I do not now how third world militia is trained or adjust their sights. Judging from what I have seen they don't consider weapon handling or proper aiming important. It is the attitude that matters
Most people can hit military targets with 2-3 seconds aiming at 150 meters after a short practice. So with a trained shooter and adjusted sights 150m is no problem for AK47. Would not like to be at the recieving end. There are 300m shooting pratices for AK47 and people can hit the targets even from that range. So - conclusion - it matters who is doing the shooting.
EDIT: But then again it is totally different to be at a shooting range when nobody is shooting back at you than in a real combat situation when you put yourself in danger every time you expose yourself in order to aim and take a shot.
Agreed. I think that Sniperdoc has gotten a lot of his facts wrong. First off, if you want to talk about Iraq ("over there") you should remember that the insurgents don't have any AK74s. Even if they did, they clearly lack weapon handling or marksmanship skills to make the most out of the weapons that they are using.
While there is no doubt that the M16 series of rifles are more accurate than the AKs, that should by no means indicate that the AKs are useless. They are quite accurate out to 300-400 m. Basic Warsaw Pact marksmanship drills had their soldiers engage targets out to 300-350 m with the AK/AKM.
To say that no one fears AKs is plain stupid. These rifles have killed more people than any other small arm in the last 50 years. Perhaps, even more than the rest of the rifles put together.
Peace,
DreDay
-
Quote[/b] ]why body armor was not implemented for a game with "Modern Combat" in the title is beyond me.Can you imagine a CTF with US units and northern sahrani units ?
Can you imagine why having one side with a huge advantage is maybe a bad idea for a game that has competative elements ?
Apart from that, if they raised the armor level, they would have to implement all "side effects" mean they have to add several types of injuries for units who get hit and do not instantly die, they have to add a speed punishment for the higher weight factor, they have to reduce endurance because of the weight factor and the heat factor and they have to invent "bleed to death" for hits in external limbs and have to add random shock and trauma effects.
It makes no sense to doctor at one piece if all other aspects are left alone.
I don´t see much sense in a game where one party is almost excluded from getting killed without getting the lifelike punishment effects for it.
I can already see the threads: "You ruined CTF, DM and all competative maptypes BIS !!"
Balschoiw,
I am not sure that I can agree with this. While I would certainly love for Arma to model all the elements that you mention; I don't think that it is absolutely necessary. I think that a simple simulation of body armor (by increasing the hit values for the torso ala OFP) would be sufficient to protect the soldiers from pistol and some rifle rounds.
Also, the game depicts SLA soldiers as wearing armored vests as well; so I don't think that there would be any issue of dis=balance.
Peace,
DreDay
-
I think you should do YOUR homework. I have talked to returning servicemen who have defied the army ban on Dragon Skin, and theytell me that it weighs rougfhly the same (about 2 pounds over interceptor fully plated), yet is flexible and provides more area protection vs threats commonly faced in iraq. 42% of marines who died from isolated torso injuries died cuz they were wearing inferior equipment. Even a Dragon Skin SOV-2000 level III vest would have saved them. The people I have talked to wear the SOV-2000, cuz the Iraqi insurgents don't use heavy armor piercing incindiary rifles which would require a level IV Dragon Skin SOV-3000. If you want verification, I will gladly provide you their contact info and they will teach you why Dragon Skin is the silver bullet in terms of providing protection from small-arms in current combat situations faced by our troops today. However, before I provide you the info, you should go to youtube and view the Dragon Skin testing videos. their level III armor is that effective at stopping level III rounds (AK-47 standard issue bad guy weapon), and t heir level IV armor is just as effective at stopping level IV rounds.Arma Damage models are flawed, 9 mm and level III rifle round sshould not be penetrating soldiers plates and coming out the other side of the soldiers body (through yet another plate....)
GuyGuy,
I was curious; do you know how much of the dent the Dragon Skin Vest leaves in the clay model after stooping the bullet? That's one thing that does not really show in the youtube promotional videos, but it is a crucial variable for the wellbeing of the soldiers in the field.
From what I understand, the US Army specifications require that the dent be no deeper than 3mm. Is that right?
Peace,
DreDay
-
What I've learned from this thread:1. Tanks do shoot down helicopters in real life, rather effectively too. Mostly combat simulations and a few scattered real life incident in history.
2. The best weapon for engaging a helicopter in a tank is the main gun, with the coaxial MG and the "AA" MG less effective.
3. A modern FCS is required to even have a chance at hitting anything but the most sitting duck helicopter.
4. The AI track and engage helicopters too fast and too well with machine guns compared reality.
5. AI pilots do not fly with the proper tactics enough to avoid tank MGs.
6. Human pilots in a AH-1 think they are God and are confused when ever shot Â
Yep, that's pretty much all there is to it. Next topic!
Peace,
DreDay
-
..... almost each bullet fired by AI hits the copter.This comment (and a few others on the subject of AI accuracy in general), makes me wonder if bullet dispersion is modelled in ArmA. Does anyone know whether it is or not?
Of course it is, it's just that that the AA HMGs and CMGs have a very low dispersion. In real life these weapons have much higher dispersion presisely because their main purpose is to supress rather than kill.
Peace,
DreDay
-
if anyone seriously thinks it is realistic that cobra attack helicopters in the game are being taken down by t-72s...well, id like to see of an example in real life of any attack helicopter ever getting shot down by a tank.There are plenty of examples of the attack helicopters being shot down by HMGs and even MMGs (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya). So it should follow that these same weapon systems would be just as capable of shooting down helicopters when mounted on armored vehicles.
Another thing to keep in mind is that most of the AAA fire is intended to force the aircraft to disengage and to abandon their attack, rather than actually shoot them down. Unfortunately this can not be done in Arma due to the lack of a robust morale system.
Still, I do agree with your point that these weapons are way too accurate in Arma, while the AI of helicopter pilots/gunners is ridiculously bad.
Peace,
DreDay
-
@DreDayI am not advocating perverted use of children in Arma, nor am I suggesting BIS should include them. I understand your thoughts and your fears. What I am saying, however, is that your opinions do not necessarily apply to me and my beliefs so you have no right to suggestively ban the inclusion of children in this game. The first person to misuse that right I will be right along side of you voicing my opinion. Until that time, I can think of many tasteful (IMO) uses of children and even the possibility of using the engine in a peaceful simulation.
You forget this engine is also used to train first response agencies (VBS1). As a result, your FOV is extremely narrow and your opinions effectively exclude these perfectly legitimate possibilities. Instead of thinking of all the negatives, think of some of the positives.
I think we are actually in agreement here. I don't mind children being included in VBS or a peaceful simulation. What I am saying is that the scope of vanilla Arma (or most mods for that matter) does not allow for the children to be included in tasteful and socially responsible manner.
Peace,
DreDay
-
Yeah, I agree totally. It supports my point too. I just dont see why its "OK" to kill adult men, but its not "OK" to kill anyone else. It just doesnt make sense...We are going off on a philosphical tangent over here. Â You simply can't apply logorithmic logic to morals and ethics and expect it all to make sense in the end. Â A lot of it has to do with the individual's upbringing and personal beliefs. Â
To me though, asking why is it ok to fight adults, but not kids (even if armed); makes about as much sense as asking why is the adult pornography ok, but child pornography is not... Â
Peace,
DreDay
-
Double post. Please delete.
-
CrashDome,
I understand your point. And let me be the first one to say that I am not advocating cesorship. I would hate for any government to tell BIS what they can and can not put in their games. What I am advocating is some class and good taste. I trully belive that the inclusion of children in an FPS game is shows very little of either.
I aslo see what you mean about educating people about the horrors of war. That's the reason why no one is up in arms about seeing children die in dramatic movies or news casts. However, I don't belive that Arma is a good vehicle for it. If BIS was to hire a crew of top notch writers and voice actors and focus their product on truly educating people about the horrors of war, then I could certainly see a case for children being included. However that's not a direction that they are taking (nor should they), therfore I see no need for the kids to be included.
Peace,
DreDay
-
I was trying to make the point that the very same people who go off on one about it being morally reprehensible are more than happy to kill 100's if not 1000's of adult males in the same day without even thinking twice about it.Look at it this way; if the thought of killing women or children disgusts you that much, then you should probably re-think what games you play. Since killing adult males is no different, you're still ending a life. (All be it a digital one in this case)
As I have said in my erlier post, there is a world of difference between killing an armed enemy (who is out there to kill you and your friends) and the murder of unarmed and inocent children.
It's not about what disgusts me. I would definitely not lose any sleep if BIS was to add children to the game. However I would also consider it a bad descision for both ethical and business reasons.
I don't play alot of games, but I have been playing OFP since June 22, 2001; so I think I will stick with it - thank you very much;)
I can only speak for myself, but I play this game as a military simulator and children simply don't belong at war.
Peace,
DreDay
-
3. Where do you draw the line? People are more than happy to kill "adult" men all day long, but as soon as women or children are added to the mix its a travesty and shouldn't be possible. So basically, all you people who are against children (or women) in game on the basis that killing them is morally "wrong", value an adult male's life LESS than a child or a womans? Bit of a double standard there if you ask me...DeadMeat,
Most (if not all) societies consider the murder of children to be more horrific and morally reprehensable than the murder of the adults. You don't have to agree with it, but I don't see why you are so surprised by it.
Peace,
DreDay
-
right... we should stop this before we get angry with each other, however I would just like to add that I'm not a kid, and I do have experience, Ihave been hunting child pornografi in six years, you can't imagine what horrors I have seen...
perhaps we should turn the conversation in a direction we can agree on, we defenitly need women in arma, at least for the sake of realism, can't think of any country in the world where there's only men...
Agreed. I can't think of any downside of having female civilans in Arma.
Peace,
DreDay
-
I have to say that although children in OFP is not something that i feel the game misses at all i find it rather amusing that some people on this forum enjoy a touch of hypocracy...I dont see what "more emotionally developed" has to do with this idea.
The fact remains that if you are aiming towards a military simulation then these are things that undoubtable would be included if the developer is "allowed" to do such a thing.
It just shows what a confused world we live in at the moment, where the sight of a child doing anything but smiling and playing is stooped in controvercy.
"I don't see how anyone else could confuse the pursuit for realism in simulation of military equipment and tactics that many of us share with the desire to relive all the horrors of war."
This quote i find utterly rediculous and indeed one of the most questionable quotes for a while. Â "Relive ALL the horrors of war"? Â I think its fair to say that you cant pick and choose what you believe to be the full horror of war.
Simply put; People Die and they can be all types and ages and indeed if this is a military sim where the objective is essentially to kill people using modern weaponary or tactics.
bottom line for me, why do we see child suffering in movies?
I can name plenty of documentrys and films that have these things in them. Â What essentially is the difference between this form of "entertainment" and that of a video game?
So basically DreDay, taking the moral highground on a subject such as a "War Simulator" quite frankly does not make any sense to me.
Bald_Maggot,
I really don't want this thread to trun into a discussion on ethics and morality. More so, since you seem to agree that kids have no place in Arma.
However, I will just say that if you consider it hypocritical to differentiate between the depiction the deaths of the armed and dangerous enemies (who are trying to kill you) and and the killing of the unarmed and incocent kids; then we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Peace,
DreDay
-
I woud love the horrific atmosphere it would give if there were children arround the battles, all the time we talk about making arma realistic, but a realistic part of a soldiers life is to have to deal with the sight of dead chidlrenabout the moral part, if its not okay, then why is the news programs on tv okay?
No offense; but I honestly think that posts like these are written by by either very young children or people with very little life experience. I don't see how anyone else could confuse the pursuit for realism in simulation of military equipment and tactics that many of us share with the desire to relive all the horrors of war.
So look here kids, no responsible software company would release a game that focuses on simulating the later. One day, when you are more emotionally developed, you will understand why this is a terrible idea. For now, you'll just have to take our word for it. It's a bad idea - just like playing with fire or running around with scissors.
Peace,
DreDay
Vehicle vulnerability.
in ARMA - GENERAL
Posted
I mostly agree. However, to play the devils advocate - that behavior is not that unrealistic. In real life soldiers would pretty much keep shooting at enemy vehicles until they light up, since its very hard to tell how damaged they are from a distance. That's what the wargamers refer to as a "death clock".
Still, I tend to think that this is a bug (since OFP did not have that issue); rather than a "feature".
Peace,
DreDay