Krechet1

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Xander on 11:21 pm on Dec. 30, 2001 The hind is a nonsense copter,why do you want to transport troops in it when mainly it´s used for combat areas and bombing activities?i´d rather choose an apache for the same purpose..more fast and more dynamic.. If anyone says that a t-80 is better than a m1a1 they haven´t played this game a s**t,yOu need up to 4 or 5 sabot hits to merely damage an abrams when with two or three you  can disable a t-80. why do you want auto burst in a rifle? youR accuracy goes to -50 plus the recoil iS UNCONTROLLABLE <span id='postcolor'> in real life Hind is about x2 faster than Apache mostly due to two monster engines and very aerodynamic shape. So "Crocodile" is much faster and maneuvrable than Apache. and in real life you have no idea how many lives that "nonsense helicopter" saved with its ability to carry troops. The only downside on the Hind was lack of doorguns (making crew's AKS-74U the only personnal defence once on the ground), but it was fixed with Hinds flying in pairs or with Mi-8s/mi-17s which usually do have doorguns plus firing ports for infantry inside (Hinds technically have those ports too but its too cramed to use them effectively). So dont bash "crocs" untill you've seen them in action...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Brass on 6:23 pm on Dec. 20, 2001 you cant be any more wrong. "look at grozny". the russians bombarded the city with heavy artillery until everything was flattened, to make sure they lost the least number of troops. so thats a poor example. in a confined area, you need all your whits about you, the poor structure of everything physical in ofp makes that a waste of time, plus you view a 15 inch screen, and that aint a great view of everything around you, cos in real life you may see things from the corner of your eye and act on them. your bodily actions cannot compensate for the environment, eg, youll crouch around a corner or something, showing the minimal amount to shoot at, you cant have that in the limited number of actions in ofp. the title you used "stalingrad". the conflict was over 50 years ago, military hardware has changed a lot since then, so its a very poor comparison. <span id='postcolor'> In 1996 we called Grozny Stalingrad-2000. Warfare hasn't changed. Assault rifles replaced bolt action rifles and T-80s replaced KV-1s... Not much has changed since WW2. During urban combat it is rare that you ever see the enemy, mostly mines, booby traps and snipers. firefights are usually quick and bloody.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Black Hawk Down on 6:58 pm on Dec. 18, 2001 Well, there's us Irish for one. Bangladeshi, Japs, Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, French, German..... I have a newspaper wit all of them lying around somewhere, will c if i can find it..... Population of Afghanistan: 25 million approx Amount of Ppl who died on 9/11: Â 6000 approx Result of 9/11? Afghanistan, as a country, saved from 3rd World-ness. If the deaths of 6,000 ppl are all it takes to save another 25 million, I'd be all for it.... THINK ABOUT IT<span id='postcolor'> Afghanistan was not saved from "Third worldness". All that was done is switch of power with few bombs dropped (more deaths) and US embassy put there again.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from PV on 2:21 am on Dec. 18, 2001 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Scooby on 1:21 am on Dec. 18, 2001 I'm more afraid of US than Iraq.<span id='postcolor'> why? are you a terrorist? Â If not, its your own paranoia.<span id='postcolor'> hmm explain US supporting terrorist regimes like Pakistan then... Or half of guerilla groups in South america.... or KLA (which are btw linked to new "Dr.Evil" osama bin laden and are in fact have Al Queda members in their senior "staff"). I guess cold war habits don't go away that easily, after all CIA and KGB conrolled about 90% of world's terrorist organizations before the end of the cold war. Now only about 20% are under control, but the fact of governments financing terrorism is shocking by itself. So, don't fall for those "we will fight terrorism" speeches. They might sound inspiring, but there is no and will never be any "war on global terrorism". Such war is a contradictions and impossibility by defenition.

Last thing Saddam needs right now is bombs falling on his head. Russian and French pressure is finally making US reconsider the embargoes, so Saddam understands that he has to behave. Besides why people demonize Iraq so much? It is not very keen on terrorism. On other hand allied to US Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the nests of world Terrorism. I somehow doubt US bombing Saudi Arabia... Pakistan is a terrorist regime for god sakes, yet no one really gives a f**k. So maybe Iraqis are not such "bad guys" after all? They are not perfect, but so isn't US (Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Panama and etc.) Iraqis invaded Kuwait, so what? US invaded Panama... So it's not as simple as it might seem.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from NVA Killer on 1:44 pm on Nov. 28, 2001 UN will act as civilians right? i mean where they are nobodies enemy? maybe a UN Mi-17(ive seen a UN one before) <span id='postcolor'> Better UN Hinds:) Russian paras used Mi-24s in Sierra Lione and use several as a part of KFOR right now. Hinds don't even have to fire, looks alone will pacify anyone.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from SpaceAlex on 11:30 pm on Dec. 10, 2001 U know well that US doesn't have good APC's in the game, expect bradly, which armour is lower then BMP - 1, 2 armour. Don't know why. I thought that BRDM will be a good competiter with hummer. Bouth have the same number of seats, bouth armour is good. Expect, that BRDM armour is a little low. Hummer have better armour. U can't kill soldier in hummer with a single rifle. U need at least grende louncher. U can take BRDM with a few shoots from a rifle. U can shot a driver in BRDM. U can't shot it in hummer. I think that hummer armour should stay the same, and i also think that BRDM armour should be better. (Edited by SpaceAlex at 10:31 pm on Dec. 10, 2001) <span id='postcolor'> Actually hummer's armour needs to go down and BRDM's up. Hummer is just a glorified jeep with very little protection. BRDM is a fully armour enclosed vihicle. meaning that you need at least .50 cal to penetrate it. Newer 7,62 AP ammo will probably penetrate BRDM in certain places, but such ammo was not avaliable in 1985 and still is not standard issue (due to price, high quality ammo is mostly for civilians who buy it with their own $).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from LeperMessiah on 5:13 am on Nov. 28, 2001 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Greg Dragunovski on 4:23 am on Nov. 28, 2001 HAHAHAHAH IT'S NOT BS IT'S THE TRUTH EVEN IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO ACCEPT IT..............................IT'S YOUR CHOICE OH YEAH I WAS WRONG ON THE OTHER HAND BECAUSE IT'S 99.9999999% JEWISH......MY BAD LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL LEBENSRAUM HAHAHAHAHAAHHA YEAH THAT'S PRETTY JEWISH TO ME *NVA KILLER: NO IT'S NOT GUYS!!!HUKHUK.....OHH AND NVA RAPED USA'S ASS(also true do not deny it)* <span id='postcolor'> <span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>YOU=f**kING IDIOT</span><span id='postcolor'> indeed....

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from The Blind Sniper on 1:13 am on Nov. 25, 2001 Or the Warrior the stupid americans blew up. Partly fault of the British, the Americans radioed and asked if there were any friendlies in the area, and they said there wasnt. But still.. a warrior is pretty distinctive. Pffrt. It's easy for a tank to take that many RPG hits, RPGs suck. Read Blackhawk Down? RPGs on the wrong angle would bounce off a Trabant. Scooby - You said that the T80 takes 13 hits, or whatever.. then quote a different kind of RPG to blow up an Abrams? That's somewhat misleading, dont you think? I doubt it. A 125mm sabot has trouble penetrating an abrams.. even from the side. From the top, however, is a different story. All tanks are s**t. They need constant maintaining, which is a side where the Russians win. They also need lots of gas. Which is where the Russians lose. Also - I didnt say the JagdTiger was great... I just said I liked it. It's a nice tank in Close Combat 2, lol. And Queen Kong - Good for them. Depleted Uranium is cheap, and effective. It gets rid of a small part of nuclear waste. Oh d*amn. The people we're trying to SHOOT might get sick from the radiation from the bullet. f**k I hate all that.. no lead bullets, they might get poisoned. You just shot them!! Who cares if they get lead poisoning. Same with shotguns, hollowpoints, etc. God. Fuss fuss, politically correct bulls**t. We have to kill them humanly. Pffrt. <span id='postcolor'> What RPGs are you talking about? RPG-7 is a great tool in close combat (and for taking out doors in urban fighting). But saying RPG-29 is s**t is a little ignorant. Or famous Shmel', which produces practically a mini nuke effect right out of a tube. RPG development didnt get stuck on the Shaitan trube (RPG-7). But RPG-7 is still great for lobbing grenades into buildings and such and against light armour. As for gas, Russian tanks need twice less gas than any NATO tank. And they can run on practically anything without worrying about clogging the combustion chamber or air filters. Economically for a long term warfare Russian tanks are way to go (that's why middle eastern countries dont want American or Western European equipment: they are constantly at war and cannot afford their tanks to break every 100km).

Jagd Tiger was actually a s**tty tank unless used in very specific conditions (very flat terrain and good 2km between you and the enemy). Jagd Tiger had very little sloped armor, no rotating turret, very unmaneuvrable (there were cases of Soviet infantrymen destroying those beasts with well placed Molotovs), and very prone to side and rear hits. T-34 could simply circle around Jagd tiger if gotten close enough and plink shots at it untill it brewed up (same applies to "normal" Panzer VI ausf E btw, very slow, unmaneuvereable and unreliable). Soviets were always wondering why Germans went on with developing "wonder" tanks when upgraded Mark IV in sufficent numbers could do the job just fine. Panther was also a respected tank on the eastern front, but then again it was a direct ripoff from T-34 concept (with beefed up armour and added reliability problems). By the time Panther came out, T-34-85 dominated the battle field. those who still think German tanks were "holy", read those documents (Actual WW2 reports): http://history.vif2.ru/library/battles/battles18.html http://history.vif2.ru/library/battles/battle16.html http://history.vif2.ru/library/battles/battle1.html Germans did destroy 5 times more tanks, but there were very few T-34s, KV-1 and JS tanks amongst them. Most of those destroyed were older T-28s and such during first 2 years of the war. On later stages kill ratio was on Soviet side (in both men and equipment).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from DEATH AT THE DOOR on 5:28 am on Nov. 24, 2001 Ok, I have to admit that the graphics in GR are really good, but you need a monster system to enjoy them completelly when OFP doen't need 2 much. Yeah, the levels in GR are way too foggy (no good sniping) and the real star of Flashpoint is the ability to drive vehicles. Then a note about the storyline: we all know about the cold war and that type of situatin could theoretically exist. But what about GR's storyline?! "In near future, the reds are on the path of war again" WTF is that?! Seeing the condition of ex-USSR makes a grown man cry, so how could the reds do it again?! <span id='postcolor'> Well all uniforms and armour in GR are current issue (in fact they did exellent job on that, uniforms are very well done). But what does tick me off is that they totally ignore and twist current geopolitical facts in their storyline. It is Georgia that harbours terrorists, and it is Lithuania which openly discriminates against Russian minority living there (they try to "look good" before "international community" by treating Russians living there like dogs, somehow it doesnt work so they try treating them worse). Then this whole "ultra-nationalists come to power" BS is getting old and currently unbelivable. Putin is as nationalist as they get, and yet him and Bush throw friendly jokes at each other in Texan schools and then relax at Bush's rancho. But i guess according to Mr.Clancy Putin is brewing an "evil anti-American coup to return the old USSR!". And that is considering that for some odd reason GRU supplies US with tactical information on afghanistan and GRU "Spetsnaz" had been reported protecting key Northern Alliance figures. I dont know how they managed to spoil the whole experience with a ignorant and openly offensive storyline, but they did do that for me.

People take gaming as serious activity nowdays... Next thing they'll be doing is forming political parties. Join NNLF(national nerd liberation front)! Join the fight! Che Guvera...ahem... i meant Goosman aka Minh Lee aka "Havent had a shower for a while" will be proud of you!

most f**king pathetic movement i've seen yet. So how are you wheelchair commandoes are going to "fight terrorism"? i seriously laughed for half an hour when i first saw "the movement". want to "fight terroristm" then leave that sticky keyboard and join the army. Playing counter-strike 5 nights in a row and "KiLlInG L337 TerRoR D00Dz" doesnt help any. Gamers against terrorism, good joke but nothing more. Oh and why do you have AK47 on your symbol? Another bastion of ignorance (AK47 being a "terrorist gun").

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from The Blind Sniper on 2:58 pm on Nov. 22, 2001 Russian & American tanks have a history of sucking Russian tanks have usually been quite relable, but underarmed & underarmored Abrams is the first good idea the yanks have had British tanks such as the Centurion & the Chieftan ruled the 50s-70s I think the challenger is one of the world's best existing tanks... would be a good addition to OFP I understand why the Abrams and T80 are an "almost" equal match in OFP, for gameplay.. but lets look at it realistically.. I think the kill ratio between the 2 would be 5-1, if that. Driving the Abrams would be like having god mode on. <span id='postcolor'> actually British tanks have a loooong history of sucking. Since WW2, when concept of sloped armour did not exist for the British (shining examples of British "genous" are Mathilda and Crusader). As for Russian tanks supposetly sucking, well T-34 won WW2 and generally during WW2 Russian tanks had heavies armour (single KV-1 held whole german Armoured devision, untill 88 gun could be towed during early stages of Barbarossa). IS-3 was the beast of the '40s and early '50s and T-55 ruled the '50s with T-64 replacing it in mid '60s.

i don't see the point of them. Vihicles don't have specific areas damage, so you can't truly snipe at weak spots in armour (and it would look pretty akward when vihicle blows up after it's "hit points" are taken away by 10 shots from 12.7mm rifle. And as for infantry, again what is the point? 7,62 does the exact same job...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Soon2B 2nd LT on 5:05 am on Nov. 22, 2001 The russians didn't have a whole bunch of high tech scoped assault rifles in that time period. Â How is it unfair for them? War isn't fair. Â Suck it up. Â I'm sick of reading these posts asking for needless addons. Â Not everyone goes into a war equiped evenly with their opponent. <span id='postcolor'> Actually there were quite a few "high tech" rifles. Take VSS as an example. Rifle is bloody revolutionary and makes no noise what-so-ever. Why isn't it in the game? Equipment like NV scopes, high power scopes, IR scopes was lavishly avaliable as well. So i dont see your point here. Half of most widely used Russian equipment is not in the game, and US keeps getting new units. Russian units added are full of f**k ups. take so-called BRDM-2 as an example. Is it BRDM-2? No... It is a Hungarian BRDM FUG created on the base of BRDM-1. Same with BMP-2, it is no BMP-2, but they simply took BMP-1 and put new cannon on it. I'm afraid real BMP2 has a little more than a new cannon. Even AK-74 rifle is wrong. In fact they just made AK74 model and slapped muzzle compensator on it. It still has AK47 stock and magazine. Su-25 has a Chzech markings on it for some reason.... So unfair situation for two sides is artificially created by BIS and their aim for "american market".

Hmm M1 is harder than any russian tank in game. And noone uses M60 anyways. For scoped rilfe it definately has to be VSS "Vintorez". IT was around since '87 i believe but Spetsnaz units have been using it since '83, especially popular in Afghanistan (actually it puzzles me why silenced Bizon was added instead of VSS, another peice of evidence of piss poor research being done by BIS). Caliber: 9x39mm SP-5 and SP-6 subsonic cartridges Action: auto, selective fire, gas-operated, striker-fired. Lenght: 894mm Barrel lenght: 200 mm Weight: empty: 2.6 kg, loaded w. scope PSO-1: 3.41 kg Magazine: 10 rds detachable box Muzzle bullet velocity: 290-300 m/s (~ 900 fps) VSS (Vinovka Snaiperskaja Spetsialnaya = Special Sniper Rifle) was designed for special operations. Adopted by Russian Military and Special Law Reinforcement units in 1987. This rifle has integrated silencer and uses special subsonic ammo - 9mm cartridges SP-5 (special subsonic sniper cartridge) and SP-6 (special subsonic AP cartridge). With more precision SP-5 loads VSS provide a 75mm (ca. 3") 5 shots groups at 100 meters. SP-6 AP loads can pierce 8mm steel plate at 100 meters with heavy (16g) bullet with hardened steel core. VSS is intended for use at short and medium distances (up to 400 meters with telescope or up to 300 meters with night (IR) sight). Noise level of VSS is as low as 130dB, and is equivalet to noise of .22 unsilenced rifle. VSS was (and is) used in all local conflicts that Russian Army was involved in last decade.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from chuanren on 6:01 am on Nov. 21, 2001 nvm...... Â i think a C-5 Galaxy is nice or a AN-225<span id='postcolor'> An-225 would take up the whole island to just part. That thing can lift bloody 250000kg of cargo! It surpasses AN-124 by 50% in size and AN-124 is about 30% bigger than C-5 Galaxy in turn.

BTRs are more expensive actually. They are comfy rides too, while riding on BMP is pretty much like riding on top of Bulldozer.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from The Jub Jub Bird on 6:43 pm on Nov. 17, 2001 The Taliban don't have much more than the Northan Alliance. The Taliban were given their hardware by America during the Afganistan War with the USSR. But now the Americans are giving stuff to the Northan Alliance. But they are getting more from the Russian. No surprise it isn't top grade stuff...they don't need it. Besides, if I was Russian, I wouldn't give them anything.<span id='postcolor'> correction: Americans gave Northern Allience hardware. Northern Alliance are re-named Mujaheds. Taliban wasn't as big during Soviet-afghan conflict and in fact they came to power 3 years after conflict had eneded during a power strife. Northern Allience specifically request older Russian equipment (T55s namely). They are light to move in the mountains, they know how to operate them, and Afghans don't use tanks as tanks, they use them simply as mobile artillery. The same way Russian army currently uses T62,64 and 72s. To shell the enemy you might as well use old WW2 T-34s, it will have the same effect as M1A2 shelling. In fact T-34 is still popular in the Balkans and Africa... And for those who laught at T-55, well those people obviously dont know anything about the tank. When it came out in the early '50s there was NOTHING that could match it untill ....late '70s! Basically Western armour was s**t (for the lack of better word) till mid-80s, and soviet forces had about 1 to 5 advantage with much better tanks. About giving things to NA, alot of Russians are against it (most are actually). We know them for who they are, treacherous turncoat dogs, so giving them things is calling for trouble.

chromed wheel rims would look good on those T-55s...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Shadow ATWAR on 12:12 pm on Nov. 16, 2001 Isn't there this major big russian transport chopper called Mi-28 or something? Would be nice with a BIG russian chopper too. and a civilian unarmed Hughes MD-500 or something... <span id='postcolor'> Mi-26. Biggest chopper in the world (about the size of Herc aircraft with same lifting capabilities). Can carry a BMP and 80 troops or about 150 troops (full equiped). And considering all that, it can chieve speeds of 300km/h (faster than apache).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Upminder on 5:03 am on Nov. 16, 2001 7.62-mm SVD DRAGUNOV SNIPER RIFLE TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION AND SERVICE MANUAL http://www.club.guns.ru/manual/svd/<span id='postcolor'> istinu glagolet cheloveche... voobshe na Valerenom site mozhno vse naiti, samiy classniy oruzheniy site.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from AKM74 on 2:46 am on Nov. 16, 2001 hello Krechet1. glad you back. I read in "soldier of fortune" magazine about SVD ammo. They sad "if you want to use SVD to its full power, there is special "sniper ammo" or somethink like that. BTW How many modification SVD has, and what the different ? <span id='postcolor'> http://www.club.guns.ru/eng/barnaul.html read on different new reworks of old bullets. 7N13 is quite impressive. On the types of SVD rifles: SVD, new version: synthetic non-folding buttstock and handguard, with experimental 10-rd magazine. That is basically a standard SVD with newer finish (sells better that way, although if u ask me, wood was just fine and better for camoflage purposes). SVDS, again with fancy newer finish. SVD and SVDS have considerable differences. The latter were dictated by the new conditions in the recent theaters of warfare in various parts of the world. Being a firearm designated to destroy single targets, which may be collapsible, moving, open or screened, SVDS is better adapted for airborne troops and troops carried by armored vehicles. Its overall length of 875 mm (34.5 inches) with folded stock is roughly equal to the size of a soldier’s seated body. The rifle can be operated from the ground (surface) means of transportation, using them as shelter against enemy’s small arms fire. The rifle can fire both special sniper cartridges and regular rounds with steel core, cal. 7.62 x 54R. It also successfully employs tracer and armor-piercing-incendiary types of ammunition. Externally, the SVD and the SVDS rifles differ in the following: -SVDS has a folding buttstock; -a shorter barrel; -a new conical muzzle brake with teardrop-shaped slots; -a pistol grip under the receiver; -handguards made of fiberglass-reinforced polyamide; -the SVDS construction features no underbarrel bayonet lugs; -the bayonet comes in accessory kit.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from tomash on 1:07 am on Nov. 16, 2001 #### yeah it is its easy ro recognize because of its hollow stock and small curvy clip <span id='postcolor'> well SVT-40 has a very similar set up. so dies yugo M76...