Jump to content

Anyone know if the BAOR is likely to be included?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, mjkerner said:

No, it’s a weapon swap from CM:Afghanistan.

Combat Mission Afghanistan has some really neat weapons that unfortunately never made it back over to the other CMx2 games. (Type 56, G3, FAL, M16A1, AR10, etc)
Also I know M16A1 is about to drop in CMCW but that's about 10 years in between.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2021 at 5:58 AM, Cpl Steiner said:

The opportunities for this are endless. Foot patrols in South Armagh. Mercenaries in Africa. Falklands War. All doable if we have late 70s, early 80s British Commonwealth equipment.

+1.  This!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2021 at 10:58 AM, Cpl Steiner said:

The opportunities for this are endless. Foot patrols in South Armagh. Mercenaries in Africa. Falklands War. All doable if we have late 70s, early 80s British Commonwealth equipment.

A heap more than that ...

Cyprus, Dar Mutiny, Oman, Malaya, Borneo, South Arabia (Aden) are just a few that spring to mind with a bit of modding.

12 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

+1.  This!!

Obviously mate

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rice said:

Combat Mission Afghanistan has some really neat weapons that unfortunately never made it back over to the other CMx2 games. (Type 56, G3, FAL, M16A1, AR10, etc)
Also I know M16A1 is about to drop in CMCW but that's about 10 years in between.

Already have them swapped out. Of course, it’s only a cosmetic change. They fire like the original swapped-out weapon. Still fun, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 3/31/2021 at 5:14 PM, mjkerner said:

Already have them swapped out. Of course, it’s only a cosmetic change. They fire like the original swapped-out weapon. Still fun, though.

IIRC, the main change to the M16 that makes it an M16A1 is chrome plating the barrel and gas port, and changed the flash hider from the three prong to the ringed flash hider. All they did was correct the issues created by the Army Ord Dept. that eliminated them from the original Stoner design to save money, and that gave the M16 such a bad name in Viet Nam.

Edited by Vet 0369
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vet 0369 said:

IIRC, the main change to the M16 that makes it an M16A1 is chrome plating the barrel and gas port, and changed the flash hider from the three prong to the ringed flash hider. All they did was correct the issues created by the Army Ord Dept. that eliminated them from the original Stoner design to save money, and that gave the M16 such a bad name in Viet Nam.

The main change was the addition of a forward assist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Splinty said:

The main change was the addition of a forward assist.

Ah, then the M-16 history that I read wasn’t complete as it didn’t mention the forward assist as the main reason for the M-16A1. An article in Gun digest dated 12/16/2017 states that the reason for the Army insisting on the forward assist was not mechanical, but psychological to give the troops more faith and confidence in the weapon. Yes, the M-16 in Viet Nam had a lot of issues with rounds not chambering, but those were due almost entirely to the Army eliminating the Stoner design requirement to chrome plate the chamber, barrel, and gas tube in order to save money, and the neglect of training troops in how important to actually clean the rifle. In fact, troops were actually told that cleaning was usually unnecessary! The main changes to the M-16A1 were to chrome plate the chamber, barrel, and gas tube, after which there was actually no need for a forward assist as the chrome plating reduced the fouling, as was the original design intent. The flash hider was changed from the three prong to the ringed flash hider simply because the men in the field were using the three prong flash hider to break the bands on cases of C-rations, which tended to cause misalignment of the flash hider resulting in the rifle shooting around corners. Some soldiers learned to ride the charging handle and then using the forward assist to seat the round for a “silent” chambering. This however was never the intent of the Army.

Think about it logically, if a round fails to chamber, why would one then use a forward assist to force the round into the chamber, running the risk of jamming the rifle big time vs pulling the charging handle to eject that round and trying to chamber another? If that second try fails, you have bigger problems than you can solve by pushing the forward assist. There is a reason we did rifle inspections.

In all my years with the M-16A1, I never once needed to use the forward assist. I also cleaned the rifle on a regular basis. I was also not ever in a sandy or dusty environment, such as Iraq or Afghanistan, so I defer to your operational experience with using it in those environments.

Edited by Vet 0369
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...