MikeyD Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 because they will be going to the SCAR soon as far as I know... Oh Lord, let's hope not. The Army had just (relatively speaking) dumped all their M16s for M4s! I don't think major armies are meant to turn-over their entire rifle inventory every six years. Except maybe Monaco - how many rifles would that take, twelve? The new weapon had better have a frickin' light saber attachment to be worth the expense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I guess that maybe the L17A2 is the UGL. You guessed right: Wikipedia Article 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I was just checking out the Brit Scenario "It ain't half hot mum", and noticed that one of the weapon's showing for a Rifle Section was the L17A2. I searched through the Brit Manual but this weapon is not mentioned. Is it the same as the L85A2 with UGL? I guess that maybe the L17A2 is the UGL. What is the range of this weapon? Yep, the L17A2 is the UGL. It's a standard 40mm UGL so it's good to 3-400m, depending on what you want to do with it. Additionally what is the range of the L134A1 (GMG) mentioned in the manual? A very long way. I think that the sales literature credits it with about 2km. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secondbrooks Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Other than factors like maximum range, does the game model any other differences inherent in the two weapons, such as time needed to aim the weapon at a target? I don't think so. Was once asking that is SAW poorer in CQB situation than M4 or similar considerable lighter weapon and Steve said that there is no such difference modeled. Along those lines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wengart Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 It would be nice if there was even a slight bonus in target acquisition with the M4. It currently seems that the Army, and possibly the Syrians got shafted with their weapon capabilities. Trading away long range fire power for short range speed that doesn't get modeled. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgaroktonos Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Oh Lord, let's hope not. The Army had just (relatively speaking) dumped all their M16s for M4s! I don't think major armies are meant to turn-over their entire rifle inventory every six years. Except maybe Monaco - how many rifles would that take, twelve? The new weapon had better have a frickin' light saber attachment to be worth the expense. I agree. As far as I can see the advantages of a SCAR over any piston-driven AR15 design are to do with ergonomics and modularity, advantages which the majority of the Army don't really need. And besides, if you saw a guy with a rifle that looks like a fish would you take him seriously? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaSam Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Does the Minimi Para in the Brit Module have any sort of range disadvantage against the US SAW, due to its lack of optics? I've seen operational ones both with and without the SUSAT fitted, so presumably in game having the non-SUSAT one across the board makes some sort of difference to accuracy vs an LMG with optics? 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.