J Ruddy Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 Seriously guys, that orange sunburst effect makes my eyes want to emmigrate to Finland. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 You're allow to shoot anyone... anyone other than me, who says anything about "Please fix or do somefink." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 This one? Wot's wrong wivit? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PseudoSimonds Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 Originally posted by J Ruddy: Seriously guys, that orange sunburst effect makes my eyes want to emmigrate to Finland. If we could get the rest of you to join your eyes, we'd be all set. :mad: BFC, please add more orange sunburst effect to the logo, or sumfink. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 I think they should animate the lightning thingie. Shock and awe, I tell you... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 Shock and awe. Hmmm. Makes me think that every page of the manual should have a Rummyism on it. "I believe what I said yesterday. I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it's what I said." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Ruddy Posted October 15, 2005 Author Share Posted October 15, 2005 It could be my green background, but I have something against the colour orange. Combat Mission Sunny D Combat Mission Florida Retirees Combat Mission Cheddar Cheeze Combat Mission ING Direct meh - what do I care - paint the text pink if you want... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 Is it just me or is that rifle a bit odd as well? It looks a bit too long for an M4A1. It looks more like a Vietnam era M16. I know, they are basically the same weapon, but the M4A1 does have a significantly shorter handgrip/barrel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 Looks like an M16A2 with the 203 on it, 'cept the handguard is wrong. The 203 brings its own handguard to the party, it can't be mounted on the standard one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillweed Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 The lightning is what turns me off. I get it "shock"! And yeah, I can see the ridges in the handgaurd, which would make it an A2, but with the 203 the handgaurd has holes in it. M16A2 M203 Of course, I imagine its only a preliminary thing. [ October 14, 2005, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Dillweed ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 The logo is only a temporary one That rifle is a M16A4 with M203 grenade launcher on it. Regular US Army soldiers don't use the M4 with grenade M203. That's a Special Ops configuration. This includes Rangers, 82nd Airborne, Special Forces, SEALS, etc. Marines still use the M16 a heck of a lot too, but not so with US Army squads (logistics and other units do from what I can tell). Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 Actually Steve, the M4 (with and without M203) is pretty common issue with nearly all troops now. The mech guys especially love it because its easy to maneuver with inside a vehicle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 M16A4 has the integrated sight rail and rails on the handguards. The logo appears to have the carryinghandle/rear sight like an A2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 Originally posted by RMC: M16A4 has the integrated sight rail and rails on the handguards. The logo appears to have the carryinghandle/rear sight like an A2. Actually nope, its not integrated, its all interchangable From what Ive seen in photos most of the guys in Iraq with a 203 actually use the carry handle/sight as opposed to the scope, but photos of it areant all that commen so we will see what our beta testers suggest with regards to this. We do have both built anyways. Check out the below for an idea of the different configurations. Note how the front bottom rail comes off, which is where the 203 attaches (and thus no heat shield is used)... Dan [ October 14, 2005, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 That bit at the top of the upper receiver where the carrying handle is on the A2, that's the integrated sight rail. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 Yup, it is, I actually thought you were suggesting that it was an integrated part of the weapon whereas it is interchangable. At the top right of the image above you can see the carry handle/sight attachment, which is what I was referring too Above you suggested that this was only used on the A2 whereas I have many photos of it in use on the M230/A4 combo as below and thus why we had a model representing it. As I said we also have one with the scope as well though, and will probably use both. Dan [ October 15, 2005, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ng cavscout Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: The logo is only a temporary one That rifle is a M16A4 with M203 grenade launcher on it. Regular US Army soldiers don't use the M4 with grenade M203. That's a Special Ops configuration. This includes Rangers, 82nd Airborne, Special Forces, SEALS, etc. Marines still use the M16 a heck of a lot too, but not so with US Army squads (logistics and other units do from what I can tell). Steve Umm, I am currently carrying an M4 carbine with the M-68 Close Combat Optic and the M-203 mounted underneath with the new Day Night Sight. My gunner has the M-249 Saw with the shortened barrel, some of the other gunners have the SAW with the M-145 telescopic sight. Driver has just the M-4 but with a surefire taclight mounted on the rails. I have a picture of my M-4 with 203 if you would like to see it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 Cavscout/Hellfish, Ill pass the info onto Steve. As it stands we also have the M4 with 203 if needed (I made it accidently before we thought we didnt) Dan [ October 15, 2005, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salkin Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 This place is a very unforgiving place when it comes to modelling of weaponry.... Having a grog fanbase obviously has it's drawbacks . If there is anything less then perfect you guys whinge about it. Well maybe that's how Battlefront make so good games . //Salkin Gamer-grog 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 Guys, we know the run of the mill US soldier carries a M4, so we're all set there. However, I have yet to see a picture of a frontline US Army soldier, not from Special Ops, that has a M4 w/203. However, NG Cavscout has reminded me that I did run itno some info that Armored Cav and some of the Mech guys are replacing their M16/203 with M4/203. If someone can come up with some info that implies that this is a systematic changeover, and therefore would be standard for 2007, I'd of course be interested to know all about that. RMC, the handle/sight is now a part of the rail system. That means it can be attached or not, depending on circumstances. So just because you see the handle/sight doesn't mean it is an A2. Looking at the hand guards tells you more information than that. The problem with the new modularized weapons is that, for the most part, the decision of what to mount or not mount is up to the individual, squad, or perhaps higher unit with a SOP that overrides lower decisions. This means the variety of configurations is rather large and impossible for us to simulate. That means no matter what we do someone will have perfectly legitimate grounds to say "it should be this way" or "it should be that way". Fortunately, it doesn't matter. The peformance of a M4 with the laser designator on the top vs. the right side vs. the left side vs. won't influence the game at all. We can't simulate 2 dozen types of day and night sights either. So with stuff like this we'll pick the configuration that seems most likely and go with that. It just isn't possible to do more than that, and fortuntaely it isn't important that we do more than that. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 Another photo of an M16A4, this one a Marine with an ACOG and a bipod. An M4 with 3rd ACR troops in Tal Afar. Marine with M16A4/M203 Hi-res image of a Marine with an M16A4/M203 and a carrying handle. Caption says this soldier is from the 3rd ID's TF 4-64 Armor. He's got an M4/M203, Reflex sight, and AN/PEQ-2 laser pointer. Caption says this guy is from A/1-112 Infantry. M4 with M68 CCO. A/1-112 is a mech unit from the Pennsylvania Guard. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/1-112in.htm [ October 15, 2005, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: fytinghellfish ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 That last guy from A/1-112 Infantry doesn't even look like he has rails on his M4! Yeah, this stuff has been driving us crazy for months now. There is so little standardization that no matter what we pick won't be "correct" in someone's eyes. Not only is there a fairly wide variety of official DoD issued stuff out there, but thanks to the lack of preparation for a prolonged MOUT centric fight like this the rules against COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) stuff being used have been largely ignored. For exmample the A/1-112 Infantry guy is wearing non standard issue elbow pads and vest of some sort. For all I know that uniform itself is a commercial copy since getting the real ACU is quite difficult still. Guys have been purchasing COTS ACUPAT stuff right on base even. Eyewear, hydration systems, and golves are usually COTS too. There are some guidelines by DoD for eyeware, for example, but there isn't a single standard issue for soldiers to get. Even communications gear is still heavily COTS at the Squad level. I read somewhere that the Marines in Fallujah used something like 30 different brands of radios before they started favoring a few types that were clearly superior. Adding to all of this is the introduction of a completely new uniform and equipment (some new, some old but in new colors). Argh... it's maddening Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 Actually, I think National Guard troops going to Iraq were the first to be issued ACUs. The 48th Mech Brigade from Georgia had it as they were prepping for deployment from Fort Stewart (I saw/talked to them there - and I can't believe the Army seriously thinks the ACU is effective in woodland and desert - they 48th guys stuck out very obviously when they were doing squad drills in the forests there). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 oops 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 The ACU was a political/fashion pick as far as I can tell. The Army conducted extensive tests with about a dozen patterns in temperate, desert, and a few in Urban. The ACUPAT was not one of them. However, they had put in Temperate MARPAT as a comparison piece, along with Woodland. Apparently soldiers really liked MARPAT. My guess is that they decided to go digital, for fashion reasons, and obviously couldn't make it anything even close to MARPAT colors for political reasons. Then some wiseguy said "hey, why do we need two uniforms for radically different environments? Why not just one that doesn't work in either?" And so ACUPAT was born. One thing to note is that ACUPAT has had its colors adjusted at least twice, most likely four times. The original was much darker and the base color more grayish. However, it was clearly too green and dark so they lightened the green to nearly gray and change the gray to a sandy color. Now it looks OK in an Arid environment and crap in temperate. But seeing as US troops are likely to be fighting, nearly exclusively, in arid environments for a long time to come... effectively the US Army now has a desert uniform and no temperate one. The US Army trials were not all a waste. The uniform design itself came out of these trials and the field testing with Stryker units in Iraq. Though the vecro's popularity was mixed and officers are not happy about losing their branch of service badge. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.