Maraudeur

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Genesis @ April 01 2003,13:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Half an year ago I read an article about the same matter. At that time US Army didn't have any kind of dedicated anti-personnel round for the M256 main gun of Abrams. And there were no mention about introduction of such round, no canister rounds or HE rounds being developed. That is some serious flaw in a MBT that is otherwise a very good one.<span id='postcolor'> True. Actually US is thinking about buying an Israeli round, wich is composed of submunition extracted with a delay fuse. The laser range finder is used combined with secondary system to calculate time of flight, shell is fired, and then sub munitions extracts to explode above entrenched soldiers. But still no HE round to spot at buildings. And Bradleys 25mm guns or TOW missiles aren't adapted as well. This is a severe lack in US ammo loads. Originaly, the doctrin for US tanks, from cold war, is to just hunt MBT's, and let strongpoints for air raids, artillery calls. Â No HE or barimetric manportables recoilless guns or rockets launchers for infantry. 40mm grenades from M203, well, useless if alone. Only the marines uses a rocket launcher derivated from the Israeli B300, 82mm with a warhead for use against stroingpoints. During last GW US Army took some from Marines depots, but they are not that strong firepower and not available in great number. Worse, Officers and NCO's are not sensible to use and tactics with those weapons. Problem is that US army, Marines and grunts are not ready at all for that sort of urban and infantry fights in general. Too young soldiers, unapropried tactics, soon severe lack of motivation. You need to be mad as hell and got " a rage ", along a very deep military experience and patience, be able to practice cynic thoughts to yourself about own life and die, to be effective in urban warfare, and survive. I also saw videos on TV with British Royal Marines using Milan ATGMs against buildings. Too costly to be used often. Bad situation for coalition forces. So would say the urban Chechnian wars experienced Russian military. They used heavy HE and barimetric rockets from RPGs and RPOs, HE tank rounds, 152mm self propelled artillery at point blank ranges, 122mm multi rockets launchers inside the town of Grozny, snipers at squad level.... and it was hard and long fight, high human cost, to pull out determinate Checnians. Guess what the future will desserve in Iraq... Massive arty and air strikes. And civilians dies, civilians dies.....just the very beginning. Â Â Â Â

Doh ! Yes 2.5 liters Brgnorway GTV6 is better designation LOL ! I was thinking to Balschoiw's spider - and also thinking that he got very good taste either - and its sister modern GTV with 3.0 engine while typing lol ! I mixed the both ! "" GTV 3.0 V6 "" while I had GTV6 and now exists GTV 3.0 V6 Â Thanks for correcting me Btw, I had owned also an '72 Alfetta 2.0, a 146 TI ( well I first rent a 1.8 TS and crashed it at 180 Km/h in Spain, then went to my dealer and bought the TI ). But those two were not, for the Alfetta, a rear driven as rigourous as the GTV, and the 146, hummm, more spirit than others non-Alfa products, but modern front driven cars with quiet handling settings ... I missed fun with BMW's, I regret I did not purchased a '88 325, while I could and when they were living the last time with auto-lock differentials... *** Now praying to save enough money for the future 157 *** Do you practice supermotard ( err, supermoto in english isn't it ? ), as you're speaking of KTM ? This is the funiest motorcycle disciplin ! * remember myself on open roads in Paris and mountains above Biarritz with hardly homologated 500CR, riding as a completely nut and road criminal, lol ! * Edit : Reply to Brgnorway, not Balschoiw oops

The vehicules I had the more fun have been my '82 Alfa Romeo GTV 3.0 V6 and '92 Lancia Delta Evo. Italian cars forever ! but now, I have utilities cars, because of my childs. Argh For the motorcycles, my honda 600XR and the Honda 500 CR ( both in supermotard with 17" wheels ). I Still own the 500 CR and the Suzuki 500 RG Gamma. Two stroke engines rocks ! I'd preffer kill than sell them ! I am now playing during vacations in off road trips with my Husaberg 501 FE and my freshly acquired Pinzgauer 710M P.S : Balschoiw, I know Deltas for sale in france, but I fear the TUV will not agree with import of those " oldies ". Try to do a search on the net with the Swiss club, they are very active.

Far ago while I was looking into the conf. files and others pbo's related to ofp " how is it ", i and friends saw for each unit an absolute value called IR and another IRrange. Maybe BIS searched for modelling this at time ??

About planes guns http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-in.html

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 07 2003,04:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Mar. 07 2003,043)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Mar. 07 2003,04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">coupled with a few handgun ownership. Â <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'> Hey! Wait a minute! Did Warin register his?? *goes to call the feds* <span id='postcolor'> LOL! Â I dont have a hand gun. Â Just a desire to get one eventually I do have Forgotten Battles though. *waves his copy at all the Euros on the forum* Nyah!<span id='postcolor'> Well I am 50% anarchist and 50% communist ( said a political test monthes ago LOL ! ) I, really, truelly have a very ruthless dictator behaviour and own, ouch, many fireweapons. I do not own FB yet And not interested to become a mod. Hum..... Please, Warin, come visit Paris with your FB copy

Thank you for the screenshoots TEX !

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Mar. 07 2003,01:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Mar. 07 2003,137)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1- I agree with you, shame that the loadouts do not offers wider choice. (actually we just have max 500 Kgs bombs max , ineffective SD1 submunitions in dispensers AB250 anb 500 only... )<span id='postcolor'> some il-2 servers let u go bombers where u can drop 5000pound bombs <span id='postcolor'> its 5000kg, il2 uses the metric system, so dose ofp.<span id='postcolor'> Yep About those 5000 Kgs bombs, just can have them with thre Pe-8 russian bomber, and as long as it is a no flyable plane, you just can access it by modifying the .ini file and can control it only by the externals views, with a very primitive flying model. This may be fun to try but not really interesting. Weight of the bombs is not all, the type cares more ( and for submunitions cans, roquets ) ... This is why I said for this point of view is shamefull. Devceloppers followed the loudder or most whinning players and worked for dogfight point of view. The air to ground sim now really sucks comparatively to the rest of the game. See the HUGE difference from the Il-2 first release and what it became with patches, and now FB. Quite nothing ( except 190A5 loads ) for the ground attack. I will be trully disgusted if the next patches do not pay attention to ground warfare and loadouts.

Woohoo !! :O I can't believe, you did it ! Many, many thanks Aaron Kane ! Y'oure great ! 1- I agree with you, shame that the loadouts do not offers wider choice. (actually we just have max 500 Kgs bombs max , ineffective SD1 submunitions in dispensers AB250 anb 500 only... ) I believe i will start lobbying in Mr Maddox's ready room for this, and more about related ground warfare 2- For the Ju-88 IA, yes, please check would be welcome ! For the 190F, do not search anymore, It should carry at least two different generations of Panzerschreck and two more of panzerblitz ( one not often, in small numbers at the very late stage of the war ). Plus of course the 21cm WfGrt. But, In Il-2, the AI do not know to aim with, bad adjustment, always too long upwards. 3 - 5 - Ok, thanks, a guy at Il-2 official forums said tanks were now using machineguns ! I had big doubts about this ... and his claims for having FB lol ! You cleared that ! Thank ! 8- yep, do not loose time trying it, if at the firts looks it seems it's the same AI for ground objects, it's the same... I was just hopping.... 9- Starting airborne, yes, in the Quick Missions Builder they always do that and that only ; but in the FMB, some speaks and screenshoots let think that, maybe this could be edited.... Let's hope 10 - Great ! I can't wait ! Still 14 days argh LOL ! Again and it is not enough, Thank you very very much Aaron kane !

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Mar. 06 2003,18:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, since you ask, I'm spending the good part of my March Break at college, coding away, trying to finish a scanner for a compiler before this Friday, which was due last Friday but only 3 people out of 65 finished . So in short, I'm not hunting around for FB because life sucks . Otherwise I'd gladly take a little roadtrip to Brampton, Toronto or wherever else in Ontario FB seems to be available. <span id='postcolor'> I was just kidding Tovarish, not seriously asking, but my bad english do not helps me Best luck and courage for your work, and then, damn, grab FB at least before me, poor european ! P.S. I hope no, this would be too much ironical : Wouldn't have you been late in your job because you played Il-2 too much ??

When flying with a Yak 3 ( for example ) right behind a 110 at low speed, are turbulences created by other planes now modelled ??

To-va-ri-sh ....... What are you doing behind your computer's keyboard and screen WHILE you should run across Canada or even the whole north american continent to find FB and make screenshosts and reports to your beloved OFP fans brothers ?? Â Â Â Â Â

Last, could you try straffing Su-76 and ZSU-37 with a 190 and tell what happens with Mg151-20, and then M-k103 please ? AI Hs-129 with Mk101 and Bk 3.7 against T-34 ? ( interest mainly at rear side of tanks ) I ask this because there is rumors about AP ammo being modelled now for those weapons

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OH! Â And before I forget, you CAN outfit the ME262 with those rocket racks <span id='postcolor'> Thank you Aaron Kane. This is driving me , that we find in an OFP space the infos impossible to learn about FB since the words exchanges in the Il-2 forums are repetitively senseless and useless, most of them. I have a favor to ask to you please. Would you please tell me, just if you know or already noticed , about loadouts and related air to ground things : - Is an AB 1000 ingame ? If yes, with same " SD1 like " submunition as in Il-2 previous AB ? - New loadouts for the Ju-88 ( heavier, maybe SC/SD 1000 available ? ) and the 190F8 ( compared to A5/U3 ) ? Some rockets except WfGrt 21 ? - Is it possible to release in two times submunitions of the Il-2 ( when all of the 4 bombs bay are used ) and select bombs release order for the stuka and 190F8 ? - Is it no more possible to release a bomb throught the propeller ring without any dammage ? - Are the tanks using machine guns against aircrafts ? - How many new ground objects in tanks, Artillery and flak please ? - In the FMB, is the fonction " time out " for stopping temporarily moving grounds objects is now working ? - Did you notice if the ground objects AI in ground to ground warfare is better ? - Is it possible via the FMB for AI and human pilots to make planes starting from tarmac and taxiing ? Other new thing we do not think about ?? Best regards

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Heavy Metal @ Mar. 02 2003,19:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess I should have been more clear and stated that no one uses RHA alone RHA is used but you have other materials like DU , Ceramic layers down to the Kevlar Anti-Spall liners. Â I assure you that the side armor and the frontal glacis is more than just RHA. The main structural component in the hull of an Abrams is stainless steel and everything else is packed behind it. Inrange uses a 'metacol' type finish from Kal-Guard. Â He completly strips and bead blasts the metal before application. Even as far back as the 60's the T-64 had a ceramic lining to make for a primitive composite armor. Â The ceramic layer was supposed to help protect against HEAT rounds<span id='postcolor'> You should be more clear please No one use RHA alone, but what for ? What vehicule ? Just frontal protection of most MBTs ? Yes. I assure you that side armor of some MBTs, Abrams and LeoIIA5 for example just feature thin armour plate Just kidding Heavy Metal Best regards.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Heavy Metal @ Mar. 02 2003,00:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I perfer 'incapatation' to stopping power and detests the phrase 'knockdown power' as nothing short of a true cannon possess that type of kinetic effect. Fackler may not be perfect but he uses documented scientific methodology that anyone else who cares to take the trouble and expense should be able to repeat with similar results. (unlike some of Marshal and Sanow's claims) Ballistic Gleatin should be thought of as the equivilant of 'Rolled Homegoneous Armor' used to rate AT projectiles. No one really uses RHA for modern armor anymore but is is a good medium to compare one projectile relative to another.<span id='postcolor'> Hi Correct, noany amount of energy is usable to quantifty any incapacitation of human organism working order. This is why I still say be carefull with gelatin. Your parallel with RHA is an idea, but not really apropriate. While penetration is considered, you still can use any other reference material. I explain : If for example 10 centimeters of bore carbid, ceramics or any other material is necessary to stop a penetrator, and if 35 cm of RHA is necessary to stop the same poenetrator, where's the problem of using that equivalence ?? Even when use of different materials in composite armour produces the broke of the penetrator, the RHA equivalent is lowered to keep the scale. But, BUT for the terminal ballistic, it is completely another matter of facts. It is not question to determine an amount of what any you want to counter two physics, but WHAT HAPPEN when in the material. It is like coumparing gear box mechanism and fluids mechanisms and physics. This is where the material structure takes care. And gelatin is really not representative of the supposed subject of studies, human body. Gelatin is homogenous, non elastic. Its density is near of most of semi liquidian human tissues, but that is all. It do not react similary because the tissue strucuture got nothing at all to see, just because firstly gelatin is not a tissue at all. And tests are driven at very low temperatures to fix gelatin. So, coumparing two materials because it is claimed they got a similar water composition, but when whole structure got nothing to see and when the temperature is very different, it is a mistake. And gelatins do not knows different levels of hardness, elasicity, density, as human body parts offers. So... P.S. : BTW, RHA, no more used Ahem, except boxes of ERA and composite boxes of armour, RHA is the main material used. For example, in tanks like Abrams, only the two front boxes each side of the gun contains others materials ( but some RHA is in also ) all the rest is RHA. And so goes on for many others MBTs. RHA is used along others materials, but not replaced by other. And for lightest armoured vehicules, it is by today the most ( 90% ?? ) used material.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Heavy Metal @ Mar. 01 2003,18:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Arguing is pointless because in the end I get issued IVI C77 Ball ammo, with a few tracers. Â <span id='postcolor'> The canadian version of the Swedish SS109, the same as our M-855. I have read some reports of M-855 not fragmenting like it should. Â Could be the result of manufacturing varations. Â After all, fragmentation in 5.56 (military ball) rounds is by accident and not design. More stuff, this one about how 7.62x39 ball is a poor stopper: Note: Â This includes data(not pictures) from the Stocton Calif. Shooting so don't read if you are squeamish! Fackler study on 7.62x39 terminal effects.<span id='postcolor'> Hi heavy Metal Sorry, the SS109 ball is not Swedish, but Belgian, as the manufacturer that conceived it is belgian, FN ; Fabrique Nationale at Herstal. About the 7.62X39, do you know that russian armed forces consider seriously switching back to that cartridge because 5.45 offers less terminal ballistic effectivness ? That they already bought some weapons to be tested and some others regulary used in Cechnya in 7.62x39. Be very prudential with Dr Facklers work. It is very complete, but some od the fundamentals are mistaken. Firstly, tests driven with ballistic gelatin is not representative to what would happen in real life. Because gelatin is homogenous material ( density, hardness, etc ) and not elastical as most human materials are. Some others points cares also, but at different level, including for example personnal cultural thinkings that, saddly, sometimes conflicts with the scientific work Dr Facklers produces. For example the search for effectivness with big and slow bullets for handguns. But, I saw the term " stopping power " somewhere by there, please Heavy Metal ban this term because Dr Fackler claims this is a myth, and this one of the points I higly agree with him

They rocks !! Please do the 9P149 tank destroyer with AT-6 ! http://www.jed.simonides.org/fulltra....on.html Thanks for that gift !

From the Lost Brothers Mod http://lostbrothers.ofpmatch.com/modules....&sid=70 http://lostbrothers.ofpmatch.com/modules....&sid=40

Stop whinning, you jealous, and start practice ! http://www.shooterready.com/lrsdemo.html

Sorry for the OT  Well in fact I believe that WWII sniping job wasn't so different than it is today. The men are the same, often clever and inventive, the ranges of engagement are similar, playground ( both urban and cross country ). The only difference is that in WWII the rifles and optics didn't allow to track seriously at more than 500 meters ranges with an sufficient probability to hit. But if a rifle is capable to small groups at 900 meters, that doesn't mean you will try to reach that range as usual or best distance of engagement just because you are a sniper. This is in fact the contary. And about the WWII weapons accuracy, I would say that it was easier 60 years ago to recruit men with abilitys, reflexs, quite a sixth sens for shooting, even far that no any material will do better or compensate -- as your kids play with a playstation, at that time they hunt, shoot every sunday after the office in clubs in every village or near ( strong pratic in germany ), varminted birds and others moving animals etc...now.....-- For the background, well : - Snipers mixed with regular infantry, for fast and decisive fire at max 300 meters with no real concealment needs and possibility ( I mean no patient and stealth approach ) for the sniper. - Counter sniping, well the task is to be closest as you can, yesterday and today. ( and while you are supporting infantry, the ennemy sniper will open fire himself at close ranges the most often - close range = just farther than usual infantry weapons ranges of engagement, that is short ) - Free hunt, for tactical reasons - available field of fire length most of them ), 400 meters is a common distance, more and you are exposed, let's say one third of the shoots can be done at 600 meters, not much. ( and targets will rarely stay without moving for a sniper to come and visit them, they've got others things to do so ... do not fire, get closer or try something else ) - interdiction fire : to be effective, must be near a pass if you want to lock them ( again, need of fire effectivness itself + the field of fire problem + the topographic environnment for a pass point + the necessity to be near friends/command level or/and a safe egress way ), so, always, 300/400 meters max. What else ? Ah, the myth the sniper is only the alone hunter firing at huge distances. Well, this is only the fact for very specific missions, elimination tasks, special units missions. And it depends more of the style of warfare the conflict is than to the period the sniper job is supposed to be. ( counter insurectionnal is ok for greater ranges of engagement, others...hummmm.... ) Imagine, you are in a forest. A long straight road is in front of you. Fiel of vision forward, 1200 meters or more ( rare ). A convoy. Perfect to kill a driver or a leading officer at, let's say 800 meters. Ok. Two possibilitys. A/ You're alone = shoot one and the ennemy will be in best conditions to outurn you, and hunt you. Of course they can be terrified and stay the nose in the dirt waiting for you to kill them each after another but this is higly doubtfull. B/ You're part of an unit = Wait until they reached 150 meters ( or 300 if you can stay back to preserve yourself more ) to fire at the same time the other soldiers open fire. And support, cover theyr moves after, use your spotting capacity, accurate fire to determine the threads priority. Have to think also that if by now the tendancy is to use powerfull cartriges like 300 WinchMag or 338 Lapua it is, to reduce the windage sensibility, bullet drop, bullet flight time far more than really increasing range of engagement. - except as always for specific missions, uncommon at time of two armys of million peoples were close face to face- But even today...tactical facts forces to be realist in front of the peace time planned theories like the " one shoot one kill" correct spirit but drove by bureaucrats or field unused high officers to think that the ambushed killer with extrem ranges is the major activity of a sniper. Example ? US special forces in afghanistan uses M-21 and HK MSG 90, why not bolt action higly customised weapons ? because when they have to engage, it is when ennemy is spotted, and this is at short range, when he already shoot at you, or near ! => 7.62X51 semi-auto rifles In Checnya ? Dragunov good enough Snipers are eyes, alternative comportments, before beeing  specific weapons users. All of this to say that because of the range question, the rôle is still the same, no modern and old one, what you said in the below paragraph depends of the nature of the warfare -- big armys versus counter insurgence, small groups lost in large areas eradication -- not of rifles specs or employments theories about " old " or " modern " sniper. """Over time the role would be more specific like todays modern snipers. Scouting enemy positions, probing attacks, and basicly there to be unseen and piss off the enemy, making their life even more difficult by keeping them tied down by trying to evade a snipers bullet. """ """Over time the role would be more specific like todays modern snipers. """

Wow. I'm becoming old ! Just discovered this. I heard years ago of a mortar with thermal and noise low signature but never again since, I didn't know it was fully operationnal and already in use. I am very surprised that there is no sights except a guiding and range line because it is a very complete and modern weapon, but many ultra light mortars works like this. It is proven effective, but anyway, this looks like a system usefull for very specific missions or rules of engagement, I believe a good accuracy since the first shoot would have been necessary, requiring something more sophisticated to do not loose the primary advantage given by that material to second the operator in shitty situations, usefull even to trained and sharp grunts. Is there some level bubles along the clinometer ? BTW, this is a very specific material. There is already the rifle grenades, very effective, that mortar allow a greater range ok. Good point. But only in open terrain, and for ambushes. Moving to react at agressors in unexpected and sudden fights or while ourselves ambushed, or when attacking an entrenched shooter needs fast aiming and firing weapons after moving, in many positions not only lying on the ground or like. => direct fire weapons. That's what french infantry lacks, a ball of fire ability. But they are also promised for the most to the two extremes and differents to low intensity conflicts and urban highly violent fights. So...for the first...surely a very good weapon. I believe the russian or south african methods using HE and barimetric warheads for rocquets is a good thing, more adaptative. ( hum...SASDF mix 51mm mortars, RPGs, rifle grenades and 40mm grenades in theyr squads - Â You said firepower ? -). Interesting weapon, but how often to use it at its best ? Will they be deployed commonly for all the platoons ? Anyway, fine piece of light mortar. EDIT : I saw also the ABL as replacing the LRAC. Hey, good things are coming !

Sorry, the LGI ? About my side, the " Political Compass " gave me as an absolute and extreme, half communist, half anarchist !

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Dec. 14 2002,15:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i hate snipers<span id='postcolor'> Tsss Tsss Tsss.... But You like me Ran, don't you ? BTW, as Ran I prefer rifle grenades because of theyr power because the overall usefull mass of powder and metal is far higher, but first the fragmentation is way better than with 40mm rounds. With 40mm rounds the most of the balls and shrapnels go in an forward oriented cone, so lethal effects are reducted. But 40mm grenades launchers are always and instantantly ready. With rifle grenades the shrapnels goes around the axis and even some backwards. No mercy for anyone in a room or in an 15 meters radius in open terrain. And they are sooooooooo accurate when familiarized ! No problem at all to catch a window at 75 meters or an APC. I knowne a nice guy, old unteroffizer ( non commissioned in english right ? ), that could obtain a direct hit IN a well at more than 100 meters, without sighting ! The same guy ( he looks like a bear, came from a mountained area and was likely analphabet ) which was from an artillery company when calculating distance and terrain level coumparison to aim the 120mm mortars used just his thumb over the map, turned the wheels, then fires...and regulary his rounds falls in a 50 meters side sized square ten kilometers away !! From the time he opens the map at the first time on the current battery place, then received target coordinates, to the first shoot, 20 seconds maximum ! The officers were dis-gus-ted ! LOL ! But always took him with them when competition were between units on manoeuvers...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 10 2002,19:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Dec. 10 2002,18:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">that's why thi kind of video material should be censured , classified or whatever , to avoid all those civilian's reactions and lack of understanding<span id='postcolor'> I think such videos would be good if people realized that that little dot on the screen, running away and get blown up is a real man, scared to death, running away just trying to survive. It would raise awareness on what an ugly terrible thing war is. Unfortunately TV and movies has corrupted most of the people so that they only see the whole thing as an abstract show, no more then a video game <span id='postcolor'> Yes. And those videos must not be classified. people need to be educated. Not conditionned.