Jump to content

echo1

Member
  • Content Count

    4291
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by echo1


  1. But Resistance was not Stand-Alone.

    Bare in mind that when you combine the two, you basically get OA with ArmA 2 loaded as a mod. So an OA ACE would cover owers of OA, and people who own both OA and the original.

    I'd be gutted if ACE abandoned A2. We never faced this problem in OFP nor A1, despite the release of several expansion packs.

    I'm almost certain that WGL never ran on vanilla OFP.


  2. Isn't the game more governed by the cpu rather than the gpu? I'm thinking of going for an intel Q9650 to replace my Q6600 which is running at 3ghz but not sure if its worth the price/upgrade.

    Would it be better to get a new mainboard/cpu combo rather than replacing the Q6600 with another Socket 775/771 cpu if so what should i be looking at to make a worthwhile upgrade, been out the loop regarding hardware for the last 1.5 years.

    You run a Q6600 at stock speeds? :rolleyes:

    Overclock sonny!


  3. It makes sense... OA provides a lot of nice features/units in game, and provides engine improvements that will lend themselves to interesting modding possibilities (e.g. the thermal/night sights for guns). So it cuts down on the workload for the ACE team in certain areas while providing for all sorts of cool stuff in the others. Hell, in the OFP days, the vanilla version pretty much died out after Resistance came out, and it didn't have anywhere near as much new stuff as OA did...

    This may not be exactly the right thread, but does anyone know if the ACE island pack was ported to ArmA2?


  4. Been playing around with OA a bit over the past few days. I think it's fair to say that OA is to ArmA 2 was Resistance was to OFP (perhaps minus the awesome campaign, but in terms of the impressive amount of new features and improvements)

    One thing though - would a thermal sight be affected by vegetation? I was doing some night time sniping, and I was figuring that some grass shouldn't be enough to block out the heat signature of a person...


  5. Also it's made of wood, which reacts badly to wet conditions (near water, in the jungle), and it makes it heavier.

    That's for the regular versions of the M14 that were replaced by the M16 because of heavy weight, heavy recoil, badly suited for the jungles of Vietnam and the need to carry more ammo. The M14s that are still in use are often highly modified, which makes the argument in favor of the M14 pretty senseless, considering there is little M14 left in them. Might as well get rid of this archaic design, and go with something that uses all of the latest in technology rather than buying all new parts, and fitting it around the M14 barrel.

    Edit: point proven in the pics that DM posted above. It should be judged by what it is, a stop-gap measure based on battlefield experiences, not the future of extending the range of infantry units.

    The wood stocks were replaced by fiberglass ones in Vietnam. Now of course, the stocks have been replaced by the sort of things in DM's pics.

    The reason why the M14 is used is because there were lots of them lying around in storage, and it saved the comical procurement fiascoes that tend to surround American weaponry procurements. Eventually the stockpile of dusty boxes in the back room of the armory is going to run out, and this of course is why weapons like the SR-25 and Mk. 17 are being bought by the different branches of the US military.

    Just curious if the HK IAR will be really replacing the M249 SAW or if they are goint to complement it? Are there any actual new infos/pics/vids about HK IAR?

    Some time ago, it was designated the "M27 IAR", and it's going to replace some, but not all M249s. It's basically a standard HK416 with a heavy 16.5" barrel, there's rumors that it will use either the 150 round Armatac CL Mag drum, or a 50 round quad-stack magazine being designed by Magpul.

    There's also the rumor that it's intended to replace the M4/M16, and they designated it as a SAW complement to avoid procurement problems. Although that one does seem a little far fetched, it may not be far from the truth...


  6. The main reason towards the resurgence in popularity of the 7.62mm round is that the 5.56mm doesn't have the range needed for Afghanistan.

    Afaik, all the M14s in service with the various US military branches are ones that were pulled out of storage from the Vietnam days. If they are going to go buying new 7.62mm rifles, it obviously pays to shop around and what the current state of the art is like.

    The M14 is heavy which makes it good at handling recoil.

    One of the reasons why it was replaced by the M16 was that it was too light for the 7.62mm round and consequently generated lots of recoil. Granted that was mainly in regards to full auto fire, but it follows that something that is too light for auto fire is probably going to give a heavy kick from firing single rounds too.


  7. So if they need 7,62 rifle they should point attention to some of the .308 variants of AR-10 or SR-25.

    I remember, what loud words had been said about SCAR program, about every its advantage. And now... Suddenly it doesn't have any noticeable advantages. BTW, its price would be much lower if it become not only SOF but whole army rifle instead of M4/M16 variants.

    Aren't there some serious reliability problems with the SR-25? I read that only a few rounds can be fired in rapid succession or it fucks with the barrel or something... which kinda defeats the point of a semi-automatic...


  8. It's been out a few days now, but given how prolific the SCAR is in Operation Arrowhead, I thought it worthy of mention -

    Spec Ops Command Cancels New Rifle

    June 25, 2010

    Military.com|by Christian Lowe

    In a surprising reversal that follows years of effort to design a one-of-a-kind commando rifle, the U.S. military's Special Operations Command has abruptly decided to abandon the new SOCOM Combat Assault rifle – the "SCAR," as the rifle is commonly known – in favor of previously-fielded carbines.

    Details provided exclusively to Military.com reveal that SOCOM, the Tampa-based command that oversees the training and equipping of SEALs, Green Berets, Air Force Special Tactics Teams and Marine SOC groups, will stop purchasing the 5.56 mm Mk-16 Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle and might require all units who now have them to turn the new weapons back into the armory.

    "The Mk-16 does not provide enough of a performance advantage over the M-4 to justify spending USSOCOM's limited … funds when competing priorities are taken into consideration," officials at USSOCOM said in an email response to questions from Military.com. "Currently, three of USSOCOM's four components receive the 5.56 mm M-4 from their parent service as a service common equipment item." (Naval Special Warfare Command is the only component that does not purchase its weapons with Navy funds.)

    SOCOM said it will instead purchase additional Mk-17 variants that use the heavier 7.62 mm round, more Mk-13 Enhanced Grenade Launchers, and a newly-designated Mk-20 Sniper Support Rifle. (Industry observers say the Mk-20 is basically the Mk-17 with longer barrel and other sharpshooter enhancements.)

    News of the cancellation of the Mk-16 variant of the SCAR is a major reversal for a command that spent six years and millions of dollars fielding a rifle specifically made for use by special operators. It was the first rifle since the M-16 that was competed, tested, and built from the ground up for the military.

    This cancellation will certainly be poorly received by program advocates who touted the weapon's mission flexibility, better gas piston operating system, and performance in dusty environments as clear advantages over the current M-4.

    Elaine Golladay, spokeswoman for FNH-USA, the weapon's manufacturer, declined to comment on the cancellation for this report.

    Ironically, the company announced May 4 that it had passed the final hurdle from SOCOM's weapons buying office to go into full production and fielding of both the Mk-16 and Mk-17. It is unclear if SOCOM had made the decision to cancel their buy of the Mk-16 when FNH-USA issued that announcement.

    Additionally, sources tell Military.com that SOCOM is leaning toward requiring that all Mk-16s currently fielded be returned as retaining limited numbers of them would complicate training and logistics support.

    Officials with SOCOM said the services have so far fielded 850 Mk-16s and 750 Mk-17s throughout the SOF community, but did not specify which units got what rifle. As of last count, Military.com reported Army Rangers, most SEAL teams and Naval Special Warfare Combat-Craft Crewmen had received a mix of Mk-16s and 17s.

    Original program documents from SOCOM show a requirement of over 120,000 Mk-16s and nearly 40,000 Mk-17s.

    It is unclear how many Mk-17 rifles SOCOM will buy. The command budgeted $3 million in fiscal 2011 to purchase SCAR variants and had an additional "unfunded requirement" of $1.6 million for SCAR.

    "The Mk-17 fills the existing capability gap for a 7.62 mm rifle," officials said. "USSOCOM is in the process of determining the exact quantities of the Mk-17, Mk-13 and Mk-20 variants that will be purchased."

    Link


  9. 1. They would be fighting a nation that is already got thousands of troops in the area. U.S. Has by far the most powerful military in the area it would be sucide.

    Another way of looking at it is that the US forces are stretched thin engaging an insurgency in two different countries. Are they really prepared to have the Iranians galloping in on top of them? Not so sure.

    2. If we declare war it will not be anywhere as easy as Iraq. Iran is a nation with dedicated people, they will not surrender in groves no quite the opposite will happen. It will be describe as tense pitch battles in the hills and in major cities. They will not put up a formal army instead hide all heavy weapon systems and wait for an advance into their country. then launch attacks on supply lines, The U.S. has a bad supply system. (See Iraq war) The U.S. would be dealing also with a better equiped nation with many modern weapon systems. Just look at the land features in Iran it would be painful to carry a war in that nation even against someone like the taliban. Much less a nation like Iran. the U.S. will not lose by military power. They will lose when 100, 200, 500, dead start happening a day. When Iran can pull off days like that atleast twice a month U.S. support at home will fall. U.S. can't be beaten in a fist fight but with proper measures which i think the Iran leadership knows of they can win.

    It works both ways. There seems to be quite a sizable chunk of Iran's population that don't like their government and what it stands for...

    3. Nukes, two nations with Nukes have never gone to war.

    Hasn't stopped the party for India and Pakistan yet.


  10. I never said that we didn't give the afghans Stingers, but I highly doubt that Taliban have any because they're using RPGs on our choppers when they could be using Stingers. Make sense? Of course it does.

    I think that's because the Stingers were useless by the time the Americans came along (these things don't last forever, they have shelf lives). There sure were a lot of them that weren't accounted for after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan.


  11. I don't think it's possible to discuss morality without taking into account the peer group in which that morality is occouring.

    To whit, how gays are treated in Iran is none of yours or mines business.

    That is a matter for the Iranian people.

    It's certainly not reason enough for me to advocate killing them by the thousand for example. I'm not intrested in going to war with another country over gay rights. The cure is worse than the disease.

    And yes cultural relativism cuts to the quick of this issue in my book.

    I don't think a society can say that something is wrong, and yet recognize another society's right to do it if they wish. Laws are based on a concept of objectivity, and that if you carry out that act, no matter who you are and where you are within the jurisdiction of that law, you are guilty and should be punished. Obviously there are exceptions, such as self-defense or whatever, but these are bound within particular circumstances based on logic. But I think that to say that it's completely wrong and abhorrent where you live but recognize other people's freedom to do that undermines the objectivity of that, because ultimately there is no reason why that should be the case.

    Obviously this works both ways, and I'm sure there are plenty of people in the Muslim world who hate Western societies for allowing homosexual behavior, and from a completely objective viewpoint their opinion is no less valid than ours is. My ultimate point is if society as whole believes something to be wrong, we shouldn't be afraid to say it's wrong to whoever might be doing it no matter who they are or where they live. Sure we might be taking a piss over other people's cultures, but it's a small price to pay for not being a hypocrite.


  12. I do of course accept that where I live the idea of hanging people, let alone hanging them because of their sexuality is abhorrant.

    It is not necessarily undemocratic or immoral however even though it is clearly deemed to be in our society. And Iran is hardly the only society in the world to kill gays. Nor is their killing of gays a specifically malign Islamic princicple. Many Christian nations in Africa do the same. Rpobably some Hindu's and bhuddists do too I expect. Being gay may be cool where we live, but there are vast numbers of societies onthe planet that do not agree with this in any way.

    Please don't tell me that this is an argument for cultural relativism?


  13. My country does.

    The ability too.

    We call it our "nuclear deterant".

    That's our right and if you don't like it, so what?

    There are enough evil governments with nuclear weapons as it stands, we don't need any more please.

    Are you suggesting Iran is a country that has no legal system? That it is not governed by the rule of law?

    Things are a little different there than in some forgotten Taliban valley in my opinion.

    Yeah, because a country run by self-serving religious nutcases is such an improvement...


  14. You can live in your la-la-la land till a nuke goes off somewhere in the suburbs of Paris, or better yet a cargo/tanker with said device in a port with oil refining facilities. We'll be laughing about Michael Jacksons being alive-jokes, no doubt.

    I think someone has been watching too much 24.

    Arguably the most progressive democratic and free in the middle east.

    Given the events of last year, that either says a lot about Iran's neighbors, or means nothing at all.


  15. What amuses me is that Bush allowed the global recession to happen and then stepped out of office just in time to avoid the worst of it. Consequently Obama, who is the one who has to clean up the mess, gets all the blame because he just happened to take the throne at just the wrong time.


  16. Wolle, they were just taking the piss out of others' views and were not seriously insulting Mr Obama.

    Interesting the stuff that's going on, but such things happen throughout a year in one place or another, I can't see such a thing kicking off any time soon.

    This.

×