Decoys/Traps etc.

snipurs · Post by **snipurs** » 2005-06-01 23:53

speaking of traps i remember playing a vietcong game where the sapper can plant a stick and then plant a another stick and the sticks wouold connect and one stick would ahve a bomb. if anybody walked and toouched the bomb it would go boom, and you can defuse it alot and stuff. wow i loved that game

Figisaacnewton · Post by **Figisaacnewton** » 2005-06-02 03:52

Liking everything in this thread so far, good ideas with boobie traps and i like a terrorist faction idea, an offshoot of the MEC.

Now, how about this?: can we get trip wires to work, for claymores and such? that'd been sweet.

keef_haggerd · Post by **keef_haggerd** » 2005-06-03 00:49

solodude23 wrote:Yeah, that would be cool with claymores and tripwire. Would add alot more to defensive gameplay. Especially if it is an objective map or something where only one team attacks, the other defends.

thats one thing you dont see too much in most games is a defense set up, which id like to start seeing.

Tactical Advantage · Post by **Tactical Advantage** » 2005-06-03 01:53

I love claymore, in games like SOCOM, im one of the few that use it, and nothing beats taking out 2 or so guys with the tap of a button

snipurs · Post by **snipurs** » 2005-06-03 18:00

what would be cool would be china gets there bombs and stip wire. americans get claymores and mec get homemade bombs (pipe or maybe rpg with exposion or somthing) then like what about IEDS? i am pretty sure that ieds are used for defenive things

Tacamo · Post by **Tacamo** » 2005-06-03 18:37

Speaking of nasty claymore tricks didn't some armor crews wrap they vehicle with claymores just in case VC/NVA surrounded them? Would have made a serious mess outside the vehicle.

keef_haggerd · Post by **keef_haggerd** » 2005-06-03 20:02

Tacamo wrote:Speaking of nasty claymore tricks didn't some armor crews wrap they vehicle with claymores just in case VC/NVA surrounded them? Would have made a serious mess outside the vehicle.

ouch!

Tactical Advantage · Post by **Tactical Advantage** » 2005-06-03 22:48

That it would have, but lucky the guys inside will be safe.

Post by **JS.Fortnight.A** » 2005-06-04 00:43

Yes the individuals on the inside of the vehicle would be unharmed, as claymores are a directional anti-infantry weapon (not total anti-armor); hence the fact that they state right on the claymore itself "Front towards enemy".

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land ... aymore.htm

Tacamo · Post by **Tacamo** » 2005-06-04 03:48

Plus considering it was done on heavier pieces of armor they could take somewhat of an explosive shock without the spall effect coming into play. Helps even more with the claymore not being a shaped charge.

dru187 · Post by **dru187** » 2005-06-04 12:22

special forces is not just army,its a type of unit.there are many different special forces units,for example,the marine has force recon,theres the brittish sas,delta force.and more i do not know of.

i also think IED'S are a good idea as they are most of the casualities in these days.(improvised explosive device)

dru187 · Post by **dru187** » 2005-06-04 13:44

when i say special forces is not just the army i am talking about the certain unit.which is considered "special forces"not only the army is a special force.like i said force recon is a special force unit.seals are a special force unit.delta is a special force unit.sas is a special force unit

dru187 · Post by **dru187** » 2005-06-04 13:54

true,but i was just trying to clarify that the army is not the only special forces,yes it might be the name of their special forces unit,but to me that is a generic name

Tacamo · Post by **Tacamo** » 2005-06-04 14:55

I think the Marines kept their guys out of SOCOM so they could have more direct control over them and they wouldn't have to worry about the interservice rivalries within SOCOM' leadership. Also due to the way they're structured and the branches size it makes more sense for them MEU commander to control them directly. I think the true broad wording would be special operations unit since it covers foreign groups as well as those under the intelligence agencies who don't report to military commanders all the time if any.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2005-06-04 15:28

Tacamo wrote: I think the true broad wording would be special operations unit since it covers foreign groups as well as those under the intelligence agencies who don't report to military commanders all the time if any.

Yes, the correct broad wording would be special operations forces (SOF). There are several units, not just the US Army, that also use the "special forces" name for their units or commands (Republic of Korea, for example), but it is usually considered a proper name rather than a generalized term.