Noltyboy
-
Posts
264 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Noltyboy
-
-
Although the BMP have hatchets it also has nifty little firing ports for AK's with a tiny little windows for the ironsights.
There's even a locking mechanism which holds the AK steady.
And these now work in game!
EDIT- blimey that looks rusty inside!
-
-
That sounds like a Porno I watched last week.
Mord.
Me too! :eek:
-
That's why I've argued (for years) that 5.56 and 7.62 should be swapped for 6.5x55mm or 6.5x68mm (which is truly awesome imo).
Sounds strangely similar to something people came up with in 1945.
-
The primary issue we have with putting out screenshots right now is we have a couple of unfinished models/textures that tend to show up quite readily in scenarios. Experience has shown that people don't handle this very well so we tend to hold back until these sorts of details are sussed out. But from a development standpoint this is the least important thing to do so it comes at the end of development. Hence the fight between promotion and development. Since we're developers first, publishers second, we tend to steer away from promotion distractions. In the end that's a good thing for you guys (trust me
), but it can also be frustration in the short term.Life is complicated
Steve
Yeah i remember the uproar when you posted the pic where the soldiers thompson SMG pouch was upsidedown.
-
AH sorry i remember what i was now. It was the Falklands. The Marines used single shot SLR versus the Argintine Automatic SLR .... automatic SLR was all over the place hence the Mariines had fire superiority as it was ultra accurate. Sorry for the miss information above.
Strangely ive always read that alot of the Brit troops would "liberate" argentine FAL's because they had an automatic function, realy useful for clearing the trenchlines the Argentines dug everywhere. Fire superiority was more likely achived by the simple fact that the marine's, para's and guardsmen where against argentine concripts, poorly led with low morale. Plus they were just NAILS!
-
Bolt action rifles are more accurate due to not having the big heavy working parts moving around while the round is still traversing the barrel like a Semi auto Rifle. This is only realy an issue over long ranges as it has only a small effect. Hence why most "sniper" rifles are Bolt action but Designated marksman rifles are semi auto.
As for using automatic fire the only time im told its used by UK forces is during final assaults on a position. Lots of grenades and clearing with rounds. As a current "part time" sailor im told im not even allowed to use the automatic mode on the L85
-
Doesn't the "Hunt" command do that?
But then cancels all further movement, not good for shoot and scoot. And will cancel if it sees any enemy, perhaps leaving out of LOS of the enemy you want to shoot at.
I have so many ideas this is ending up a book, it almost seems pointless as BF get so many from us 99% of them get lost or forgotten about.
Some things that i would like would be a "behaviour setting" that would change the way the Tac AI handles encounters, a Recon setting where the unit advances at set speed but is wary, when coming under contact will fall back, try to get out the field of fire by getting out of LOS or popping smoke etc. A defensive setting where the find cover from the enemy and an assault version where the unit will react aggresivly, higher rate of fire to surpress the enemy and will try to go through enemy fire untill surpressed, where the others they would more likely try to find effective cover.
The ability to queue orders on a waypoint, something like "target X, pause 10, target Y, pause ten, popsmoke" all on the one waypoint.
The ability to tell the unit to use a "special" weapon and how many to use. Officers can tell people they want "1 jav fired at that house" in the real world so it isnt unrealistic. They units can still fire them at there own discretion if they want to.
The ability to "unaquire things" and also for vehicles to be able to aquire things from other vehicles. So vehicles wont run out of ammo, they can be resupplied by trucks. Also smaller amounts of ammo to be aquired at one time or we type in what amount we want.
The ability to break off one or two men from a squad (unless its a realy small one) that can be used as "runners" to fetch ammo, act as sentries and so on, they are small enough to not realy be combat effective and be quite brittle if under fire. If from a HQ unit they will give a C2 boost to other units by "passing on" commanders orders and intent. This would be useful for a force like the syrians where C2 isnt brilliant.
Plus it should be set in 1980's NATO vs Warsaw Pact.
-
Noltyboy wrote:
If US WW1 vintage destroyers were so much better than RN ones then the problem predates any spending crisis, and the account of Hood's turret being unable to turn due to rust on the bearings is simlarly independant of the overall situation, while making the Dido's top heavy with low water & fuel is bad design - possibly due to cost constraints, but still bad design.
So no, I can't see how you can say it wasn't the RN's fault - these are things that shuold have been gotten right by one of the most experienced navies in the world at any time.
I went and asked some others this and they said yes it was all true, while what id read showed there where problems i never realised it was that bad.. Appologies lads, i was slightly defensive as im hoping to join the RN soon as a Marine Engineering Officer. Thanks god things have changed.
-
An obituary for Vice Admiral Sir Louis Le Bailly has shown an unfortunate side of the RN before and during WW2 - it seems basic engineering was neglected by the RN between the wars, to the extent that when the RN tried to operate with the USN in the Pacific in WW2, the RN was only keeping ships at sea for 8 days at a time vs the USN's 90 days.
There are other examples of the RN paying more attention to spit and polish than grease, metallurgy and design fundamentals in the article - well worth a read.
I think this is very unfair on the RN. GB and the RN were the leader's in engineering from the 1850's till near 1920. After this there was a major problem with "resting on ones laurels" coupled with a major problem of shipyards that were against change. Throughout the depression and recovery little money was put into UK ship building practices and yards, there wasnt any. When war loomed in the late 1930's there was no time, money, space or spare capacity to upgrade these facilities that had gone unchanged for 40 to 50 years. Fighting for national survival makes it difficult to modernise. The USA on the other hand when war came was able to set brand new open shipyards with all the latest tools.
The the UK had been able to rely on a network of bases around the world and had no reason to operate in the open Pacific untill 1945. Most of the problems involved the lack of a proper fleet train. After being forced back from Singapore to the Indian Ocean there was no spare ships to do more than hold the line. This being the time of the battle of the Atlantic and so on. When the fight was to be taken to the Pacific in 1945 a large number of fleet support vessels were commision but mostly didnt complete untill after the surrender of Japan. But i do believe that the "8 to 90" figure is wrong.
Otherwise its a pity that he has passed on i am wanting to read his published works.
-
As I expect 99% of unmanned missions would as well. My point being that a human pilot is not proof against mistakes. And in some cases may actually be more prone to them.
If you're worried about a threat in 10 years time you're already too late to start designing your next manned fighter!
Very likely, but a human is able to make choices about what to do and how to do it. The same ability in a robot is likely a long time away.
Your correct and i think i had misread your previous post when i posted to that part above.
-
I'm not positive if the Syrian's even had their SU-24s and MiG 29s in 2008 as they don't have very many now, but I was hoping some one would know. I'm not positive the German Typhhoon squadrons were operational yet. There's nothing I could find to confirm either on the web. Again I'm happy for any Red Air. I agree B-1's B-2's and B-52's shouldn't be in the game nor should German F-4's. But thanks for the opportunity to once again pitch my pet project: The German Bo 105!
Think of the chaos if a B52 did an attack run!!
-
We've already got autonomous trigger happy pilots flying over hot spots. As any number of Afghan wedding guests, Reuters journalists and British squaddies will testify.
Besides which, low level conflicts and air-to-air dominance are not congruent. To the best of my knowledge, not a single fixed wing aircraft has been lost in the air to enemy fire during the 8 years now of Afghanistan. Too high. Too fast. No competition.
I think you are being slightly disingenuous to those providing CAS in afghanistan, 99.9% of the 1000's of missions provided every year go without a hitch.
But the widespread proliferation of 4th Gen fighters and high end SAM systems means we cant just sit on our hands. Who say's we wont need to deal with something like that in ten years time.
-
dismounting Marder crew brought the milan with them?
-
What it isnt the real name? bugger.
-
Thanks for the ibfo Noltyboy. I was not aware that Montgomery had a great grasp of helicoptor warfare so I am slightly non-plussed.
Incidentally the site here:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/AirSafetyandAviation/JHC/
show what wordy shambles it is. I say shambles as apparently amongst its 15000 odd staff none speaks English sufficiently well to understand the difference between principal and principle.
It is also the first time the ugly manufactured word "jointery" has come to my attention. Admittedly it pre-dates JHC so they cannot be held liable for military jargon.
In July 2009. So JHC aso seems to good at deploying units? Actually I don't think helicoptors are the panacea they seem to get painted and the terrian is hostile let alone the environment. If you read the full article you will see how the US loses track of 147 helicoptors whilst we are engaged in dumbing down the latest Chinooks.
Ok its a bit old but i still think it holds ground.
The Army have no idea about what it wants to do with Air Systems. Look at the way that the Army Air Corps and Royal Artilery are happily spending shed loads of money on UAV's with out talking to either each other or the RAF.
You have never heard of the term Joint? its the latest fashion dont ya know! The UK's forces sudden love of the colour Purple is a pain in the arrse. JFH, JHC and so on is only the begining.
That independant article is as usual rubbish. Full of holes and complete inacuracies. Of that list of helicopters "not in afghanistan" the 47 "others" are the training helicopters so hardly front line.
The Gazzelle is out of service now and in afghanistan would have had trouble carrying a payload of a Skinny Ghurka armed with a Browning 9mm.
Lynx has been out in afghanistan, and of that 179 includes the Navy's Lynx HMA.8's and the army's older Lynx AH.7.
Seaking is out in Afghanistan with the Royal Navy commando helicopter force. But that Number of 90 will includes the HAS6 ASW Helo, the ASaC7 AEW Helo as well as the MK4 commando carriers.
Pumas saw major action in Iraq and are old and need replacing.
Merlins numbers also include the Navy Merlin HM1's and HM2's ASW helicopters.
It doesnt mention the problems encountered by having to upgrade all helicopters going to Afghanistan with alot of protection against SAM's and other threats, most of it expensive and top secret.
No mention that you do need to keep a reserve of aircraft that are not using all there flying hours or being shot at.
-
Its rather sad that the Army Air Corp and the RAF [and the RN] have all been screwing around with helicoptor requirements. In my book helicoptors are close close support and land based ones should not be RAF.
All helicopters come under JHC (Joint Helicopter Command) which is controled by the LAND HQ (army).
It was LAND's desicion to cut funding for helicopters in around 2003. The generals dont understand how to utilize transport helicopters. They happily cut it for things they understand such as tanks, guns, Apache's and so forth.
"I hold that it is quite wrong for the soldier to want to exercise command over the striking forces. The handling of an Air Force is a life study, and therefore the air part must be kept under Air Force command."
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein
The Brits only swear at football games. During combat their upper lips are too stiff for their mouths to form the words.Are you kidding? The average brit squaddie swears all 24-f***ing seven!
-
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, but how long will it take someone to come up with a low cost device for spooffing/jamming IFF signals and/or say, an EMP device which will render all the remote, autonomous and piloted, rather useless.
If the EMP was able to burn through the hardened circuits of the UAV's control system then any 5 gen manned fighter is just as buggered.
Still i dont see UAV's taking over from manned fighters for a long time. No matter how long we spend treasure, time and effort developing AI in the next 70 years (probably longer) we cant beat the Mk1 human brain for the ability to process data and come up with solutions to problems. hundreads of thousands of years of trial and error development takes some beating.
As for high end remote control UAV's the problem is as brought up earlier is latency and bandwidth. Human reactions are already considered "slow" and now we have extra responce time added on for the plane to react.
-
What type of 5.56 rounds are used by modern western militaries? Are they armor piercing? I don't know how modern 5.56 AP rounds would stand up to the "bulletproof" glass equipped on 50 year-old BRDMs, or even if any of this is modeled in CMSF.
You can get AP in 556 but normal loads would be ball. I.E. lead bullet with copper jacket. Maybe a LMG would have AP rounds loaded in the belt.
-
just had brits do this, except the BRDM then shrugged off on ILAW hit aswell.
-
on the count of 3...
-
It's the Dutch...
And whats the difference??
-
battlefront already explained why this was not possible, too many things to do that were more important
And? Dammit i want trucks!! lmao
I know i just like to complain. Still think BF rocks.
-
I think that the NATO and Brit Light forces should have trucks like everyone else!
Shooting moving targets - automatic vs semi
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Sorry thought it was a reference to the 6.5mm Grendel and the 6.8mm Remington SPC. Its been a long day and im tired.