Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

akd42

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    242

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by akd42

  3. Posted · Edited by akd42

    The USMC does not employ women in combat roles. Not as pilots, not as foot mobiles, not even as supply runners in a confirmed combat zone. The US army does not allow women in direct military roles either. They do allow women to do supply runs which due to modern insurgent style warfare does mean combat for a small number of women.

    You are wrong. There are female Marine pilots, including Cobra (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9415465) and Harrier pilots, and under the Lioness program female marines are attached directly to combat units (in order to interact directly with Muslim women). Further, many women Marines have seen combat while serving in second-line units (there is even a book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/Few-Proud-Women-Marines-Harms/dp/0275999939). The U.S. Army also has female combat helicopter pilots.

    There are plenty of places BIS could have included females in the U.S. military in the game, e.g. as Marine or Air Force pilots or aircraft crew, Marines serving in forward bases ashore, or as sailors on the LHD, but I can see why prostitutes were a priority.

  4. Posted

    Depending on availability:

    DMR>Druganov>M16A4+ACOG+M203 (or M107 if no vehicles whatsoever)

    Javelin/metis for open areas with tanks, stinger/strela for maps with heavy aircraft, and normally SMAW with HEAA > RPG7 with 3 PG7-VR (or VL if no armored vehicles).

    Usually only take 4 mags and 2 frags, if no launcher then 3-4 frags, 3 smoke and rest ammo for M107.

    I just can't see myself playing without a scoped weapon. Not because it's "zomg overpowered" but because it's simply too hard to identify and aim at pixelated targets at 200-300m, and no, the zoom feature is simply not enough. I shouldn't have to fire 10-20 rounds to hit someone at those distances when comfortably prone and holding breath, and in-game at least a 4X ACOG is needed to hit someone at those distances with 100% hit ratio (assuming ideal conditions of course, while for aimpoints/ironsights even ideal conditions don't give decent hit rate even though IRL they would).

    Any mission trying to be realistic by not allowing me to have an ACOG is actually ruining realism, because it's forcing me to use weapons that are improperly simulated in the game.

    I love the MK48 mod 0 and it would likely be my weapon of choice if there were absolutely no vehicles (launchers are a must if there are) and fighting was limited to 300-400m, if they would actually fix the zoom so I can see stuff at those distances. With the current system I just can't without a magnifying optic.

    Keep in mind this is while playing on max settings (post processing off) at 1680X1050, so it's not a system issue.

    Having everyone run with AT weapons may be unrealistic, but so is everyone driving APCs. The loadout system is definitely in desperate need of fixing, but there's a lot more than the loadout system that needs fixing, mission design needs some major tweaking as well. Though don't expect an AT specialist to run around with an mp5 with 3 mags! IRL they carry all that heavy gear (well not as heavy as the crazy M203+launcher loadout, but rifle+launcher is perfectly normal for AT specialist), they just don't move as freely and easily as a rifleman...

    I don't know how heavy a SMAW is, but carrying RPG with 2 rockets is just about heavy enough IRL, and it's normal to have a 2nd guy carrying 3 more rockets for you. For javelins (and afaik metis is also similar in this matter) it's also standard to have someone carry 2 extra rockets for you - even in-game if it was possible it would be nice to have 2 people carry 3 rockets instead of 2 by using some teamwork, but the current "slot system" doesn't allow it. M136/RPG18 just needs a total rework - should cost only weight and launcher slot, not 1/2 your inventory making it useless unless you have no choice. Besides, just about any launcher should have a very high chance to destroy non-MBT armored vehicles with 1 direct hit, needing 2 is just silly considering the most armored ones don't have more than 40mm of armor when even the lowest penetrating rocket (PG7-V) penetrates like 230mm.

    Another thing that is funny is people complaining about the M203+rockets loadouts, but nobody says anything about peopel running around with M240B, aiming it while standing as if it's some 3KG assault rifle (and carrying 600 rounds for it)... Do you guys realize how heavy that thing is? It's 12.5KG EMPTY

    Oh, I've noticed. I've also noticed that the 240 is even more accurate when you are moving. Magical, it is.

    240 gunners should carry 200 rounds of ammo (4 belts).

  5. Posted

    Just a note on language, as it may cause some confusion within the game or with other external sources. The fire team is a sub-unit of a squad (for example, three four-man fire teams plus a squad leader constitute a Marine rifle squad). It does not by name have a specific tasking, but is simply the smallest sub-unit that maneuvers independently. Any sized unit (squad, platoon and on up) can be task organized as you described, but the usual terms are support or fire support element and assualt element, where the element is task-organized individuals or sub-units.

  7. Posted

    As an example, let's look at the weight for a seemingly "realistic" loadout listed above:

    M16A4 M203 ACOG - approx 11 lbs

    Smaw with 1 HEAA and 1 HEDP - 43.4 lbs

    M9 sd with two clips - 4.1 lbs

    5 x M16 mags - 5 lbs

    40mm grenades x 6 - 3 lbs

    smoke grenades x 2 - 2 lbs

    Satchel charge - 20 lbs

    Total weight for weapons and ammo alone = 88.5 lbs

    The goal to maintain combat efficiency is less load of less than 48 lbs. The goal for marching (not combat) is less than 75 lbs.

    The common uniform alone (clothing, helmet, LBV, water) weighs 23.63 lbs.

    add interceptor body armor for a cumulative weight of 40 lbs

    add the minimum weapons and ammo loadout for a rifleman (M4, bayonet, 7 mags) for a cumulative weight of 54.6 lbs and you have already exceeded the goal for a combat load without even considering optics, NVGs, grenades, lights, IR designator, etc.

    Total soldier's load for the ArmA 2 loadout above would be in excess of 130 lbs! You would not be able to fight.

  8. Posted · Edited by akd42

    Whats that supposed to mean? We are all "silly" for having loadouts that we personally like?

    You must be rather sensitive about this issue to read that into my statement. I meant simply that both the restrictions (only 8 203 rounds) and allowances (SMAW + 2 rounds + plus sniper rifle) are silly and not based in reality. The former is an unrealistic restriction, the latter should come with consequences, e.g. being forced to walk around like this:

    070409ap_marines_800.JPG

    Something like a SMAW is not a backup weapon to be slung casually over the shoulder. It is a big, heavy, cumbersome, crew-served weapon.

  10. Posted

    Yes, ACOGs have ballistically calibrated reticles, so you zero for 100m then the stadia below gives aiming points for further distances (200m, 300m and so on).

    Aimpoints and other red dot sights, like iron sights, are given a "battle zero." Because the trajectory of 5.56mm is so flat, zeroing at 200m or 300m means that rounds will land within a few inches above or below the aiming point at typical engagement ranges.

  11. Posted · Edited by akd42

    ...

    hmm, after watching the video.

    He needs to reload after each SD bullet.

    SD bullet? Meaningless term.

    That' wouldn't make sense in combat, perhaps Arma simu *cough* another silencer?
    No, the suppressor (silencer) is not making a difference. The ammunition is.
    Because generally its the gas pressure which retracts the bolt, and with a silencer the gas pressure would be lower.

    No, it is somewhat higher. Do you mean with subsonic ammunition? If so, yes, but that has nothing to do with the suppressor on the end of the rifle.

    Which would make the silencer be blown apart when using ammunition with higher gas pressure.

    Any ammunition with high enough pressure to blow apart the suppressor would do permanent damage to the rifle as well. All quality suppressors are designed to be shot with standard military ammunition. This is not surprising, as that is how they are most often used.

  12. Posted · Edited by akd42

    Yes, thats true.

    No, that is not true. US military, at least, typically uses regular issue ammunition with suppressors. Subsonic ammunition typically will not cycle the bolt in a gas-operated rifle.

    This best demonstrates both regular and subsonic ammo in the same rifle with a suppressor:

  13. Posted

    I don´t understand the iron sights, what angles are needed to hold the weapon and what relation has with range , min-max-ideal ranges etc

    Now for me it is a work of adjusting shoots based on impacts, no ideal at all.

    The 203 iron sights are worthless, ass backward and look like crap. I don't know why they even bothered. Just practice and learn the angles.

  14. Posted · Edited by akd42

    err...Taurus...wrong post?

    Most guns come with their respective ammo. Some though, mainly the western guns, all use the same ammo and magazine well. Thus, you can use magazines from the G36 or the STANAG magazines in the G36, M4, M16, M8, or any other standard western AR. That even means putting an MG36 magazine on an M4 or SPR. Too bad it doesn't make it look like there's a beta mag on there.

    The other difference is Suppressed rounds. These are denoted with "SD" at the end of the magazine name (STANAG SD, AK SD). The difference being that SD rounds are usually subsonic compared to supersonic standard rounds. You can fire SD rounds through a standard gun that normally uses standard ammo, or normal rounds through a suppressed weapon. But because they move slower, SD rounds have a shorter effective range. Expect to be limited to about 50 meters less than you are used to, and expect to use more rounds to kill someone. Finally, using standard rounds (STANAG vs STANAG SD) in a suppressed weapon means that, despite the suppressor, your shots are going to be about as loud (though not as loud) as a standard rifle. Standard rule of thumb is to use whatever type of magazine your gun comes with, until you have no choice but to switch or run out of ammo.

    G36 = STANAG (someone have some hard details to the differences between the two?

    G36 SD = STANAG SD

    All of them fit into the western rifles. Also note that you can switch magazines through the action menu, allowing you to take different magazines if you so wish.

    PS: Forgot to mention, that the STANAG is the standard 5.56mm x 45 used by the US military in the M16, M4, or AR-15.

    At least in the demo, you cannot use regular STANAG mags in the suppressed M4A1.

  16. Posted · Edited by akd42

    Yes- it is nonsense, and totally unrealistic. HOWEVER, in ArmA 2, you can do that. You can quickly fire the missile and switch to the main gun. Same goes for the BMP-3's 100mm gun- you can fire the Arkan missile than quickly fire an HE shell.

    But seems totally uneccessary. I can't fire SABOT and switch instantly to HEAT. I have to reload the different type of round. Why not have the missiles as a main gun reload instead of a separate weapons system?

    People have to accept that there is no way to make a hitpoint-based system achieve realistic results. Arguing over whether it should take 5 SABOTs or 10 SABOTs to kill an Abrams is silly. Either you achieve penetration or you don't. If one shot doesn't penetrate, why should 10?

    It's just a broken system.

  21. Posted

    Wouldn't muzzle velocity be influenced by the type of ammunition used?

    Yes, ammunition would provide the baseline (e.g. M855 has inherently higher velocity than Mk. 262 because of a lighter bullet), but barrel would determine the velocity when the round leaves the muzzle. Also, velocity and accuracy are not the same thing. Velocity just provides a flatter trajectory and reduces the impact of wind drift (irrelevant in ArmA 2). A 10.5 inch barrel can be just as inherently accurate as a 20 inch barrel, but the bullets fired from each will not follow the same trajectory.

    With 5.56mm velocity makes an enormous difference in terminal performance.

  22. Posted

    M4 has 3-round burst. M4A1 is full auto.

    I just dug around in the demo files a bit and it looks like muzzle velocity is still set by the magazine in the gun, not the gun itself.

    I can't believe after all these years they still haven't fixed this.

  23. Posted

    Of course longer barrel makes weapon more accurate.
    I think you are correct actually.

    Here's the difference between a M16 and an M4. Pretty similar weapons afaik except for the barrel length.

    M855_drop_during_25-meter_zeroing_trajectory_M16A2_M4.jpg

    Obviously the question is about the game, not real life. Of course barrel length effects velocity in the real world, but does it in ArmA 2?

  24. Posted · Edited by akd42

    The problem with that is that part of the whole reason the USMC uses ACOGs is because it is meant to be used with both eyes open like the screenshots from the beginning of the thread. For Sniper rifles the blacked out thing works OK, but specifically for the ACOG it does not. For those who don't know the ACOG is meant to be fired with both eyes open, except at extreme distance, and the view does look like the scopes in Red Orchestra.

    Except, of course, that you cannot focus on the scope image and the surrounding image at the same time. What would be cool is if you could click right mouse once to bring up the ACOG and have it appear as the Aimpoint does (no zoom, surrounding visible), except with scope body/reticle slightly out of focus and partially transparent (you would still be able to aim with the bright red chevron against the in-focus, 1x background), then if you hold down right mouse, you zoom in to 4x magnification with the scope reticle in focus, but I doubt this is possible.

  25. Posted · Edited by akd42

    1)I never said what they was I only gave the title of the video so it could be found on google.

    So you are saying that the effect of a varmint rifle on rock chucks is relevant to the discussion?

    2)"The round combines armor-piercing, explosive, and incendiary effects and uses a highly effective pyrotechnically initiated fuze that delays detonation of the main projectile charge until after initial target penetration-moving projectile fragmentation and damage effect inside the target for maximum anti-personnel and fire start effect. While the round can be used in sniper rifles similar to the Barrett M82A1/XM107, it has the equivalent firing power of a 20 mm projectile to include such targets as helicopters, aircraft, light armour vehicles, ships and light fortifications, and can ignite JP4 and JP8 military jet fuel."

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mk211.htm

    And still you won't explain how that 0.84 grams of explosive blows up a vehicle. This is a meaningless statement: "it has the equivalent firing power of a 20 mm projectile." "Firing power" is not a real term. 20mm API is capable of more armor penetration (and delivers over 4 grams of incendiary). 20mm HEI carries more explosive. At most you could say the Raufoss round is closer to 20mm than standard .50 cal API in its ability to deliver after effects past light armor.

    Muzzle energy for 12.7x99 Raufoss: approx. 18,000 joules

    Muzzle energy for 20x102: approx. 54,000 joules

    Explosive charge weight for 12.7x99 Raufoss: 0.84 grams

    Explosive charge weight for 20x102 M56A3/A4: 10.7 grams

    3)Go back under your rock:D

    Sorry if I am embarassing you despite your elite google skills.

×