SeaRich
-
Posts
29 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by SeaRich
-
-
I would sure like to hear some of your opinions about the superiority of the C2 Leopard over the M1A2 Abrams battle tank (or vice versa). I know a good friend who claims that the Abrams is just an APC with a big gun on top. If that were true why would we use it? Why not buy our armor from Germany? Those of you in the Army--do you think so? What is it like inside a Leopard? I hope you will post some of your thoughts. :confused:
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:
The main reason for the AK-74 was a set of studies that found the AK-47 to be much less effective in combat than the M-16 due to logistics, recoil, and killing power issued. The AKM model of the AK-47 was perfectly fine, it just was long int the tooth and tactically out moded. The AK-74 proved itself to be a much better weapon not from a design standpoint, but from ease of supply, firing, and superior one round killing ability. It still was not as good round for round as the M16 series, but the bullets were cheaper to make and the basic AK-47 design that is the main AK-74 is rugged and very reliable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dear Slapdragon,
Thank you for answering my post!
I guess I really don't "get it" with those History Channel gun shows. There is a complimentary one that shows the complete development history of the AR-10. The program that deals with the AK-47's and such seem to be totally anti-Gene Stoner. I don't know. Some of you guys are soldiers-I am just a school teacher.Funny thing is that I thought you would take issue more with the fact that the newer AK-74's use 5.45 and not 5.56 which is what this thread is talking about.
Rich :cool:
-
Dr. Mikhail Kalishnakov was on the History channel last night talking about this very issue. He said that that the only reason that the newer AK-74's (successor to the -47's) and such went to 5.45 ammo was because of a Soviet fear of the new M-16A2 rifle invented by Gene Stone here in the States. He said (the tape was from '98) that he will always prefer 7.62 ammo over the smaller stuff. So much for that. Gene Stone was there too but the program ("story of the Gun") was mostly a love-fest for the AK-x series.You guys have started a very intellectual argument! :cool:
Rich
-
I think that TacOps is a true "thought-based" game. As such, it will never appeal to the Arcade-game/MTV crowd. I feel very lucky to possess a copy of it. Once I tried playing an e-mail game with a gentleman who was a former brigadier of the army on TF PeterJohn. I got creamed and I never played by e-mail again. My thinking is that perhaps you have to have some real military savvy to play the game effectively. That might be a turn-off to others. It is far and away the best game that Battlefront supplies to the public. And a macintosh game to boot!
[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: SeaRich ]
-
Dear Sirs:
Are the maps that come with the commercial version of TacOps 3.0 based on actual battlefields in the National Training Center. I am asking this because I noticed on TV that people who train at the NTC do so by taking part in an OPFOR versus BLUFOR wargame. Anyway, still enjoying this great game!
Rich
-
I tried using the mortar carrier to occupy the Red team (via suppression) while the rest of my team moved slowly up the hill. The beauty of this scenario is that all the infantry units have LAAW rockets. This is how you can eliminate those RedFor BRDM's.
Team Knop, the Canadian version, seems easier to me because the game provides a motorized team. Once you start suppressing the OpFor with the mortar fire, you need to get up that hill (Objective A) as quickly as possible to flush out the enemy. QED
In Team Krempp, have you tried loading some infANTRY OR ATGM's into the Bison carrier? Once I got the bad guys suppressed, the rest of the game is one of creeping up the hill and finishing them off. This one is a blood bath, I think but it was easier for me to do like this.
I hope this helps a little.
[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: SeaRich ]
[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: SeaRich ]
-
Originally posted by DS CavScout:
Why French? They'd surrender 30 minutes into the game!
Dear Sirs:
I think that a French OPFOR would be fascinating. The French Air Force is second to none (perhaps slightly better than the current Luftwaffe). If you fielded a British trackless light-heavy division against a similar French OPFOR, I think you could have endless possibilities with the small arms alone. With New Zealand Forces and the Australian Army joining on some missions, it would be fascinating. Unfortunately, this would mean hours and hours of work for MajorH. I am really grateful for all the work he has already done, especially for us Canucks!
-
Is there a "gunship" version of the Griffon Helo? I know that there is a gunship Huey so I thought Canada might have the same thing. I couldn't tell from the photo database if you could stick a big gun (7.62mm) out the window or something. It would be neat if you could.
-
Ok, one more question. If I mounted an infantry team on a Griffon Helo unit, would that change the firepower of the Helo to that of the soldiers riding in it?
IF I placed a 50 cal team on a Griffon, would it do the same?
If so, cool.
Thank you so much for your answers!
Rich
-
Does anybody know if it is a possibility to mount a Stinger SAM or a blowpipe SAM on the top of a M113 IFV transport? If so, is this represented in TacOps or do we just get the standard M113 with a 50 cal MG on the top?
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
I know this is a ton of questions, but suppose you only had the 50 cal, isn't that "good enough" for most things(ie Mi-24 Hind, AA fire, etc...)?
-
More units (if possible) for New Zealand's Armed forces.
A dialog window that lists a continuous spot report/ damage report. This would be like BCT has where there is an actual little window that registers information every time a friendly unit takes fire or takes a casualty. The same thing is available under Reports-game status or Reports-OOB, but I would rather have the little window.
-
You are right. The generation of an AI G1 thru G4 would be nearly impossible --especially on most of our "average" speed computers (100 thru 233 MHz). Great idea though!
-
I would concur with the major's position on this one. There are tactical games that require the user to adhere to an OPORD plan. It is really realistic, but it really sucks the life force out of you. I think that TacOps has a perfect balance of OPORD (Scenario description) OOB (Reports-Game Status, spot reports) and AAR (you can get them at the TacOps site).
My advice for you would be to buy a copy of Patrick Proctor's Brigade Combat Team (www.shrapnelgames.com) which is a Windows version of JANUS, the US Army program and play away. In this program, OOB's, OPORD's and such are necessary for the successful "textbook" solution of a mission. Please try it and decide for yourself. As for myself, I found that TacOps was simply more fun!
Best of luck to you
Rich
-
I have found Major Belles' idea to be an excellent one in my own gaming. It is really great how the Bison can both target and shoot on its own without the player setting the TRPs or constantly resetting the target range. I guess this wouldn't work with a Paladin, however.
Great Game, MajorH!
-
I'm just a Canadian sort of guy so I really like to use the TUA Eryx ATGM in all of my strategic engagements. I like to place dug-in ATGMs in entrenchments in shallow roughs overlooking roadways or ravines. This way, the TUA or the Eryx (The US calls it something different, I guess) to eliminate the forward recon units of the enemy. Eliminating these enemy recons saves my own troops and armor from being blasted out of the ground by those big bad OPFOR FA units that are soon to follow. Yay! Canada!
Richard
[This message has been edited by SeaRich (edited 11-21-2000).]
-
I would be sure and try to resupply at that point. If not possible I would get my troops back onto a transport and get them out of there fast. Sometimes the individual combat team scenarios provide ammo trucks that might help in the resupply process, but I don't know
-
Dear Sirs:
Could you please answer my question? I have been playing the Canadian Army scenarios that use the SRAAW teams (It is a little bazooka that is something like the Eryx ATGM). I noticed that the effective range of the SRAAW is 600 meters. How do you use these units? Is it best to ferry them around in a M113 or place them in a town or other cover? Whatever I have done, I just don't know how to place these SRAAW teams. Please post your ideas and suggestions below. Thanks you very much!
Rich
-
I have had the same problem with my copy of TacOps.My system is a 400MHz PII with 128 RAM. The defect has never affected gameplay so I never worried about it. After installing the 3.0.5 upgrade, though, the problem went away. Do try it!
-
God love you, Marines
You make our country a great place to live.
Rock On!
Richard Crowley
Seattle, WA
-
Thank you Stoffel. I am sending you my set up for Task Force Pipes (the Canadian version of Peter John), default options for the game have been selected. Have fun and write soon!
Rich
-
Has anybody ever won TF Peter John? How did you do it? If this scenario had actually happened, what would have been the likelihood of a US victory.
In this scenario,which units are best for Recon usage? I noticed that in TF Pipes (the Canadian version), the BluFOR is provided with several Coyote Recces to do spotting. In Peter John, the army force is all tanks and so forth. Any suggestions for a good recon plan?
-
Thank you so much. I finally used the FA the way it was supposed to be used and I actually won a game!
-
Does anybody know what the difference between ADJ and FFE is? Why can you only fire smoke in FFE mode? Are High Explosive rounds more effective in either one of these modes? Please post your answers and thoughts below
Thank You!
-
I thought you all might like to know and comment upon the new US Army contract for the upraded version of the Apache Longbow. A Seattle, WA Headline of today reads, "Two contracts will upgrade aging Apaches." Although the article is aimed at the economic community of the Boeing Aerospace company, the significance is far reaching. New night sensors will be added to the Apache missile systems. This should be great news for the Army as well as for Boeing engineers and scientists. Specifically named in the article is the Arrowhead guidance system for the Hellfire ATGM missile (well known to TacOps afficionados). The new Apache will be called the AH-64D and is to be upgraded (grandfathered) by Boeing Military and Apache Systems of Mesa, AZ. The US Army will then possess 501 of the "new" Longbows by 2003. It would be interesting to know if this new Apache will produce a positive or negative effect on the Army of today. Please post your thoughts and opinions. I would like to hear them!
BTW (By the way), they have pictures of these new guided Hellfires. Oy!
Sure would hate to get hit by one of those. Ouch![This message has been edited by SeaRich (edited 11-02-2000).]
I guess I really don't "get it" with those History Channel gun shows. There is a complimentary one that shows the complete development history of the AR-10. The program that deals with the AK-47's and such seem to be totally anti-Gene Stoner. I don't know. Some of you guys are soldiers-I am just a school teacher.
Stupid Newbie Question
in TacOps 4
Posted
Try using the SOP option "reverse after firing 100 m" or "reverse if fired upon and pop smoke" or some such. The tutorial is a fantastic way of getting to know the basics of this game and the SOP is a good way of simulating alternating fire or ambush on an enemy position. It can also save the lives of many of your "soldiers." Good Luck!
Rich