Can you mod bullet penetration values?

causticbeat · Post by **causticbeat** » 2007-03-29 00:00

'[R-PUB wrote:Viper5']You mean BF2 Hit Detection is realistic?!?!?!
But umm yeah Jury has a verdict and Kenwayy wins...

I think its fair to say that anyone with actual duty time overides the arm chair scientist/physics expert any day

hoc_xfirestormx · Post by **hoc_xfirestormx** » 2007-03-29 00:05

causticbeat wrote:I think its fair to say that anyone with actual duty time overides the arm chair scientist/physics expert any day

what if hes both!? hoc|kensei FTW.

anyway, yeah the body is 70% water... LOL

Post by **Jaymz** » 2007-03-29 03:01

anyway, yeah the body is 70% water... LOL

OH GOD!!! Don't do it firestorm! Kenwayy is like a loose cannon!

hoc_xfirestormx · Post by **hoc_xfirestormx** » 2007-03-29 03:05

WNxJaymz wrote:OH GOD!!! Don't do it firestorm! Kenwayy is like a loose cannon!

haha well since a bullet is made of metal, and metal sinks, when a bullet hits the human body, it is merely absorbed and drops into our feet, which is why guns are so bad at killing people...

vbf2 got it right. pr still needs to work on it, but theyll get it eventually. its a hard concept to wrap your head around, i know.

Post by **GeZe** » 2007-03-29 03:05

hoc_xfirestormx wrote: anyway, yeah the body is 70% water... LOL

by WEIGHT, not by volume

just making that clear...

hoc_xfirestormx · Post by **hoc_xfirestormx** » 2007-03-29 03:07

'[R-PUB wrote:GeZe']by WEIGHT, not by volume

just making that clear...

haha i know, i was just kidding. i thought the guy saying that as a point to his argument was just really really funny.

Post by **Jaymz** » 2007-03-29 03:10

vbf2 got it right. pr still needs to work on it, but theyll get it eventually. its a hard concept to wrap your head around, i know.

Oh you

Shining Arcanine · Post by **Shining Arcanine** » 2007-03-30 00:25

Dyer |3-5| wrote:Which is precisely why the military needs to either move to 6.8mm ammo or go back to 7.62x51. But thats an entirely different argument...

Someone I know who is becoming an officer in the military (through the ROTC program if I recall correctly) told me that they are trying to avoid using 7.62 rounds in assault rifles because while a 5.56 round would leave a hole in a person's limb, a 7.62 round would take a limb off. I am not sure if it is related, but from what I recall, he said something in the same conversation about the Geneva convention, although that might have been exclusive to the use of flamethrowers, which is off topic.

Anyway, I am wondering, what is being done with the bullet penetration values?

Teek · Post by **Teek** » 2007-03-30 02:38

told me that they are trying to avoid using 7.62 rounds in assault rifles because while a 5.56 round would leave a hole in a person's limb, a 7.62 round would take a limb off

how is that worse? then they feel it. Oh and US soldiers get shot by 7.62 all the time, but rarely 5.56

Post by **Jaymz** » 2007-03-30 05:00

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyer |3-5|
Which is precisely why the military needs to either move to 6.8mm ammo or go back to 7.62x51. But thats an entirely different argument...

Someone I know who is becoming an officer in the military (through the ROTC program if I recall correctly) told me that they are trying to avoid using 7.62 rounds in assault rifles because while a 5.56 round would leave a hole in a person's limb, a 7.62 round would take a limb off. I am not sure if it is related, but from what I recall, he said something in the same conversation about the Geneva convention

That doesn't make sense though, other armies use 7.62 for their main rifles.

Viper5 · Post by **Viper5** » 2007-03-30 11:02

I *believe* one of the reasons is that ya can carry more 5.56 than 7.62 because of the weight differential.

WNxKenwayy · Post by **WNxKenwayy** » 2007-03-30 14:38

The weight differential doesn't mean much anymore. When it takes 3x the amount of rounds (we are taught two in the chest one in the head) or more to bring down a target, you're kind of negativing that advantage. Plus, when the rounds you're carrying can even penetrate the walls of 99% of the houses/buildings you are fighting in/around, you kind of want to switch to something that, you know, can.

Average weight a regular soldier carries on patrol in Iraq will be between 60-80 pounds. That's Body armor, weapon, water, ammo, random assorted gear (coms equipment, NOD's, GPS, etc). A pound or two for the ability to bust through walls, bring a target down in 1 shot is well worth it.

Also, in most situations running out of ammo isn't a big deal. We are becoming a much more mounted operations force so there's also tons of ammo on the trucks.

Dyer |3-5| · Post by **Dyer |3-5|** » 2007-03-30 15:03

Shining Arcanine wrote:Someone I know who is becoming an officer in the military (through the ROTC program if I recall correctly) told me that they are trying to avoid using 7.62 rounds in assault rifles because while a 5.56 round would leave a hole in a person's limb, a 7.62 round would take a limb off. I am not sure if it is related, but from what I recall, he said something in the same conversation about the Geneva convention, although that might have been exclusive to the use of flamethrowers, which is off topic.

Anyway, I am wondering, what is being done with the bullet penetration values?

If I was in a firefight I would much rather take someones leg, or arm, or head completely off than leave a nice little whole in it.

Also we still do use 7.62 MM rounds in many weapons such as:
M14, M60, M240, M24, Mk 48 (New 7.62 version of the Mk 46/SAW) and many many other weapons including the helo mounted mini-guns.
Not to mention the .50 cal M2s and M82A1s that are widely used in Iraq that will blow you clean in half.

Shining Arcanine · Post by **Shining Arcanine** » 2007-03-30 17:28

Dyer |3-5| wrote:If I was in a firefight I would much rather take someones leg, or arm, or head completely off than leave a nice little whole in it.

Also we still do use 7.62 MM rounds in many weapons such as:
M14, M60, M240, M24, Mk 48 (New 7.62 version of the Mk 46/SAW) and many many other weapons including the helo mounted mini-guns.
Not to mention the .50 cal M2s and M82A1s that are widely used in Iraq that will blow you clean in half.

An entire group of Marines were expelled from Afganiskhan by the general on the ground there for hitting civilians during a firefight. Just imagine what would have happened if they had hit them with 7.62 mm rounds.

Dyer |3-5| · Post by **Dyer |3-5|** » 2007-03-30 17:36

Shining Arcanine wrote:An entire group of Marines were expelled from Afganiskhan by the general on the ground there for hitting civilians during a firefight. Just imagine what would have happened if they had hit them with 7.62 mm rounds.

So we should limit our ability to kill the enemy because it may do more damage to un-intentionally engaged civilian targets!?!?!
Don't get me wrong, I feel terrible for all civilian and/or non-combatants that have fallen casualties to this war BUT- In regards to small arms, the military cannot limit its ability to kill the enemy because of effect the weapon may have if it was targeted at civilians. I have said this before- I have NOT been in combat and am not (yet) in the military, but I have heard many, many stories of enemies being hit with several 5.56 mm rounds and not going down. This is simply unacceptable, it's us or them, and I would much rather it be them.

midnightcowboy · Post by **midnightcowboy** » 2007-03-30 18:19

MoZo1 wrote:Magnum can shot through a CO2 patron, and AK a railway track. It's true. However who knows, what's with HP (Hollow-point) or other anti personal ammunition, which has diferent ballistic?

All armies fight with FMJ. Geneva convention.

mammikoura · Post by **mammikoura** » 2007-03-30 19:05

midnightcowboy wrote:All armies fight with FMJ. Geneva convention.

actually it's not a part of the geneva convention, it's a different treaty. But still, you are correct, no easily expanding or explosive ammo is allowed to be used by small caliber weapons. Not exactly sure what was "small" caliber, I think less than 20mm.

Dyer |3-5| · Post by **Dyer |3-5|** » 2007-03-30 19:23

mammikoura wrote:actually it's not a part of the geneva convention, it's a different treaty. But still, you are correct, no easily expanding or explosive ammo is allowed to be used by small caliber weapons. Not exactly sure what was "small" caliber, I think less than 20mm.

I'm not completely sure, but I think that incendiary rounds may be used in .50 cal. weapons also.

Combatcontrol88 · Post by **Combatcontrol88** » 2007-03-30 22:31

Ok the kid that talked about the body being 70% water is a retard. And the M16 with its dam little 5.56 aka the .22 is a piece of shit X 5. It doesnt have a selective fire switch as people may think. It is a Jam selector switch. its modes are No Feed, Double Feed, and the ever so classic SPORTS.

Lothrian · Post by **Lothrian** » 2007-03-30 22:55

His statement about the body being 70% water was correct - the rest was not. It fails to take into account to many other key aspects (such as bone structure, variable density of tissue, fat etc) and the most important aspect, a human body (all of it, including blood) is a lot more viscous than water. The Mythbusters experiment is like comparing a tree and a human for wounds ... both are majority water, but different key variables.