Guinnessman

Got home today, and lo and behold, Brits released, happy days! Order went very smoothly, download took about 20 mins for me (if that). Quick blast on one of the scenarios and won as the Brits with a Syrian surrender. Hard-fought battle, very enjoyable. And kudos to my WMIK gunners who went on a 50 cal and GMG rampage against some unsuspecting BTRs and accompanying infantry!

Dunno about other NATO countries, but British forces call a fifty-cal a fifty-cal. Other small arms calibers get referred to in 'mm', but the fifty is in a league of it's own...

Agreed. Wee thought that sprang into my head (happens rarely so it's worth mentioning ;-)) - how about having squads/sections that change formation depending on movement orders, direction of travel and fire arcs? If, for instance, a squad is told to move straight ahead on HUNT, but is allocated a fire sector to it's right flank, the TacAI could maybe then have the squad adopt an echelon right formation? Or if it's the same situation but the fire arc is straight ahead, adopt a line abreast? Or if there's no fire arc and the squad is on a MOVE order, it stays in a column? Don't know if I explained that very well but hopefully you get the gist...I also have no idea how difficult this would be to program in to the TacAI!

New animations look very nice! However I for one am a bit more interested in that tantalising comment about 'dismountable heavy weapons'.....care to elaborate? Is this like taking vehicle-mounted M240/M2/Mk19's etc and then having the crew operate them independantly?

Agreed, this summarises the behaviour of my Humvee gunners in the 3:10 to Yuma scenario - they would quite happily blast away at visible enemies but when there were no visible enemies, they would button up. And gunner casualties were pretty much 100% for me in that scenario.

Get's a bit complicated there. Not being the biggest expert on English law (which can differ quite substantially from Scots law), IIRC the inquest can return a couple of verdicts. Lawful killing is unlikely in the context we're talking about. Unlawful can cover anything and everything from a soldier shot dead by the oppposition in a stand-up gunfight, to an IED, to a friendly-fire incident. Accidental death explains itself. Thing is, although the inquest can return a verdict of x, and it can point out various shortcomings in equipment, training etc up until now the MoD isn't actually obliged to act on anything the inquest says. So if a soldier is blown up in a Snatch land rover and the inquest rules that he was unlawfully killed and finds that the use of land rovers in that particular area of operations is bloody stupid, the MoD up until now could just say, well, that's what you think, but hey, we're calling the shots (literally) and we're going to keep giving the troops in that area land rovers, so there. Just to clarify - the 'right to life' and the 'duty of care' parts of the HRA/ECHR are two different beasts. An inquest can find that a soldier is unlawfully killed - has his right to life breached - but it doesn't necessarily follow that the duty of care section has been contravened. But yeah, aside from my nit-picking, you are essentially correct That's how I read it - it would be seen as an organisational failure and not a failure on the part of the soldiers' commander. Again, as far as I understand it, even in a case of criminal negligence on the part of a commanding officer, the MoD would be responsible as an organisation for that failure, although in such an extreme case no doubt criminal proceedings would be taken against the relevant person. You took the words right out of my mouth...... I'm not 100% sure if I share your opinion there. If I were to sum up the attitude of the general public regarding our ongoing engagements, apathy would probably be the best word. Most folks just don't seem to have an opinion one way or the other. However there has been an awful lot of anti-MoD publicity ever since the Iraq war, because of the various equipment, logistical and support SNAFUs that have been highlighted since it all started. I think that's due to a combination of a few factors, biggest would probably be the small size of our military establishment and the fact that as a result of Operation Banner in Northern Ireland the UK has a sort of a cultural 'tolerance' (if that's the right word) of drawn-out operations with a steady trickle of casualties. Or indeed, not agreed upon with anyone...... People sue the NHS all the time Isn't that always the case! 'Police or bandits'?! I resemble that remark

See, this is where it gets interesting. Every British serviceman/woman who dies has an inquest held into their death in the UK, including those who are killed in action. The MoD doesn't the inquest, it's up to the coroner (which until recently was the local coroner for RAF Brize Norton, where all our war dead are flown back to). Solicitors already represent the families of the dead at these inquests, and the coroner can and frequently does rule that the deaths were 'unlawful' (however little that means when a soldier is killed by hostile action). Examples: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6449227.stm http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1035418/Operation-Certain-Death-inquest-hears-British-soldiers-killed-Taliban-mix-rules-engagement.html Some of the inquests have revealed absolutely appaling situations where serious shortcomings with equipment or procedures were known of and yet nothing was done until personnel were killed.

Basically, yep. Although I'm not an armed officer, my brother is an AFO - part of their training covers the HRA and if it were necessary to shoot a suspect (as long as it was justified) then it wouldn't contravene the HRA. In saying that, if a suspect was shot and wounded, officers would be expected to perform first aid etc. As long as it was safe to do so of course, which in the context of the North Hollywood shootout wasn't the percieved case by the cops on scene at the time. Interestingly enough, the opening article of the HRA isn't actually anything outrageous or restrictive. It really just lays out in what is pretty much law already in most countries. In a nutshell, all it says is 'don't kill anyone unless you really, really have to'. The sticky point in the ruling against the MoD is the 'duty of care' aspect which appears later on in the HRA. I completely agree that the MoD - or indeed the equivalent in any other nation - has a practical and moral obligation to ensure that troops have the best training and equipment that can be realistically made available to them. However the HRA also states something along the lines of 'there is a duty to prevent reasonably forseeable loss of life' which I think is going to be the most relevant aspect for the MoD. I would interpret this as meaning you can't send soldiers into a combat zone without body armour, decent weapons, adequate ammo, proper acclitimisation and so on. However, I think the concern among the military is: 'what is the definition of reasonably forseeable'. If a company commander sends a platoon to storm a Taleban-held compound in the Green Zone, and one of his soldiers is killed, could it be interpreted that this loss was seen as reasonably forseeable by certain people? It's gonna be one for the lawyers to argue over by the sounds of it.

Bit of a tricky one I think, and it will be interesting to see how it pans out. This particular case did not involve a combat death, although I note in the article the judge had ruled against the MoD when they tried to exempt UK forces 'beyond the wire' of a friendly base from the Human Rights Act. I don't see how the HRA can be applied on a battlefield either. On saying that it's not suprising something like this has happened, as the MoD have really dropped the ball in providing decent equipment and training for deployed forces until recently. On a related note (and on much firmer ground for me) the police are also covered by the HRA, but there's never been a case that I'm aware of when a police officer has been murdered and the family were able to sue because he or she had a right to life that the force didn't protect. And that's included instances when armed criminals have killed unarmed police officers. From that perspective, I wouldn't expect my family to sue my force if I stumbled across an armed robbery and took the 9mm pension plan. Nor would I expect a soldiers family to sue if he/she was properly equipped and took an AK round to the face, or a direct hit by an RPG etc. There's only so much you can do.

Interesting....hadn't realised firearms were so cheap in the US. It might not matter to most airsoft players, however some of us prefer semi-auto only along with realistic capacity magazines. Going full-auto with magazine capacities of three hundred plus is for wimps I thought that in game terms, having (say) an Aimpoint mounted on an M4 would make that soldier have slightly increased accuracy at close range, whilst having an ACOG would increase long-range accuracy...doesn't seem much point in having them in game otherwise, except for eye candy.

Indeed, I have one for my various airsoft rifles and carbines....never did see the point in splashing out on an EOTech that would be more expensive than the weapon I was mounting it on.... Incidentally, here in the UK a lot of police forces (including my own force) are replacing their firearms team MP5's with G36C's equipped with the dual sight-carry handle normally seen on the full-length Bundeswehr G36. Does look a little odd.

The wikipedia entry for the RPG7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG7 has some interesting info on the ballistic performance of the round from TRADOC sources.

I'm not quite sure how they would go around actually modelling those specific units though. Outside of the obvious organisational differences between the various roles the relevant battalion is tasked to, there's not much to go on in game terms. Of course, if BFC want to prove me wrong by having lots of little grinning Gurkhas running around with kukri in one hand and SA80 in the other, or having Household Cavalry FOs calling in airstrikes with very posh accents, then I'd be fine with that

You want his house instead of the British module 2 weeks early? That's sad, man...just sad A slight improvement in Syrian AI after my experience in The Orchard Way (which I've touched on briefly in another thread)..... if a BMP3 unloads it's infantry, the infantry should be moving way the hell away from the bump. If you hit those things with anything bigger than a thrown stone, they go up like a suitcase nuke. I'd estimate over a third of the infantry I killed in The Orchard Way didn't get a shot off at me - they were wasted when I killed the BMP3 that they were too lazy to disperse away from. Takes all the fun out of things!

I don't, worse luck.....my own fault really, had FRAPS up and running but for some reason I thought the screen capture key was <Print Screen> when it was in fact F10. I was not amused when I checked my image folder afterwards! I did have troops watching the position who weren't prone.....the Javelin team were kneeling/standing. The MG team that spotted the T72 initially were prone throughout - I'd put them to Hide as soon as they spotted it. All very strange. I've since replayed The Orchard Way (as it's correctly known) again but been unable to duplicate what had happened. It is a cracking scenario though, very challenging for the USMC player. I don't think it was available with the USMC Module download IIRC, however I downloaded it from cmmods. Radioactiveman, you're quite right - in fact there were a number of ways I could have taken out the T72 without resorting to using infantry. I did consider having the M1 shoot up the area, but I was worried about the T72 engaging and killing the M1 before the M1 could accurately put rounds on target - the range was pretty short. But it probably would have had a better chance of success than the method I chose! I replayed it last night and only got a very hard-fought draw. The Syrians have a great defence set up. Favourite moments from last night - an LAV25 engaging and KO'ing a BMP3. The BMP's ammo cooks off so violently that the BMP is blown forwards about 10 metres! Coming a close second - my marines hit another BMP3 with an M136, and the secondary explosion takes out another BMP3 which happened to be right next to it....those things are not healthy to be around!