Army

BlackwaterEddie · Post by **BlackwaterEddie** » 2007-06-08 17:26

Well atleast thats good to hear, but to be perfectly honest, i dont think the US need a second faction, they already have the Marines, id much prefer to see Germany, or Japan, or Israel.

Lange · Post by **Lange** » 2007-06-08 21:08

I don't understand why a lot of people don't want to have the Army in? Sure it would be nice to have some other fractions instead because their is a US representation but including the Army isn't affecting having those new fractions. Even the devs said that their would be no new fraction untill 1.0 and i'm betting the Army was planned before this, plus from what I understand those fractions aren't even planned at the time. So please quit complaining that you'd rather have fractions instead of the army when its not conflicting with anything because they aren't planned for any release untill 1.0! Also as I said before its inrealistic to have the Marines as the only US branch in armed conflict.(look at real world Iraq War for instance US and Army).

Shifty~MwH~ wrote:us army? omg, who needs that lame faction? we already have the marines which represent the us forces. the us army would not offer anything new to this mod. what's next? us coast guards? us rednecks with their private arsenals?

imo the pr devs should either go on developing the existing factions (there are already enough), or add a totally new faction which actually offers new kits and weapons. european task force maybe? g36 or famas? now THAT would be interesting.

It will add a good amount new as we talked about with the weapons, and as with the other fractions, explained above

GR34 · Post by **GR34** » 2007-06-08 22:22

What about the Canadian army???? we need them b/c the insurgent have to win against one faction [/Sarcasm]!!!(I am Canadian)

Post by **GeZe** » 2007-06-08 22:24

GR34 wrote:What about the Canadian army???? we need them b/c the insurgent have to win against one faction!!!(I am Canadian)

http://realitymod.com/forum/f113-canadi ... oject.html

GR34 · Post by **GR34** » 2007-06-08 22:28

'[R-PUB wrote:GeZe']http://realitymod.com/forum/f113-canadi ... oject.html

OMG what patch will they be added in??

Post by **Cheeseman** » 2007-06-08 22:43

GR34 wrote:What about the Canadian army???? we need them b/c the insurgent have to win against one faction!!!(I am Canadian)

What the hell do you mean "insurgents...win"? Since 2001 till now only 56 Canadian soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan. About 5 we're killed in accidents, while 4 of the deaths were caused by US friendly fire. So that leaves 47 out of 56 deaths in combat. Canadian soldiers are trained well, and they fight well.

Post by **Bob_Marley** » 2007-06-08 23:11

GR34 wrote:OMG what patch will they be added in??

When they're done

Oooooh... I feel like a dev...

GR34 · Post by **GR34** » 2007-06-09 03:17

Cheeseman wrote:What the hell do you mean "insurgents...win"? Since 2001 till now only 56 Canadian soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan. About 5 we're killed in accidents, while 4 of the deaths were caused by US friendly fire. So that leaves 47 out of 56 deaths in combat. Canadian soldiers are trained well, and they fight well.

Sorry Mate I forgot to put the [/Sarcasm] in there!!! and i know we fight well we may not be the best equipped but we can hold are own!

Lampshade111 · Post by **Lampshade111** » 2007-06-09 21:06

I understand having the M4A1 as the main weapon for the U.S. Army but the idea that the M4 is going to fully replace the M16 has pretty much been scrapped. The M4A1 is standard for many frontline units but the M16A4 is standard for some. The M16A2 is also still used by many reserve units. I suggest what weapon the U.S. Army gets should depend more on the map.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2007-06-10 00:22

Lampshade111 wrote:I understand having the M4A1 as the main weapon for the U.S. Army but the idea that the M4 is going to fully replace the M16 has pretty much been scrapped. The M4A1 is standard for many frontline units but the M16A4 is standard for some. The M16A2 is also still used by many reserve units. I suggest what weapon the U.S. Army gets should depend more on the map.

M4A1 is the version in use by special operations forces that has unrestricted automatic fire. The version in use by conventional troops is the M4, and it has a 3-round governed burst, like the M16A2/A4.

Lampshade111 · Post by **Lampshade111** » 2007-06-10 01:42

Three round burst on the "standard" M4? That is just plain stupid. Now that I think about it we should change the three round burst mode on all the M16s and M4s to full automatic. The Russians are not going to attack anytime soon and our troops are better trained than they were in the 1970s/80s.

ZanderArch · Post by **ZanderArch** » 2007-06-10 16:27

Lampshade111 wrote:Three round burst on the "standard" M4? That is just plain stupid. Now that I think about it we should change the three round burst mode on all the M16s and M4s to full automatic. The Russians are not going to attack anytime soon and our troops are better trained than they were in the 1970s/80s.

I think I know your play style... I'm seeing it... Uh... You prone-spam and spray one clip per-person killed, right?

The AR-15 family may look all the same, but they can be quite different in operation. Heck, when I was younger I was positive that to be an M16 it had to be Single / Three round Burst and to be an M4 meant it had to be Single / Auto. But that's not the case.
The American Military are efficient, they tend not to go over kill or anything like that. That's the reason why they use the weaker 5.56 over the stranger 7.62, it's accurate and still has good armour penetration. And how accurate are most people when going full auto? Not much. That's why the military use 1/3 groupings, and that's why PR is going to use it.

Besides, Burst shots are better for CQB than Full auto most of the time, just make sure you aim rather than spray.

If you don't want to use Burst, go Special Ops class or switch over to the enemy team, they always have a nice 1/A group.

Longbow* · Post by Longbow* » 2007-06-10 17:03

Lampshade111 wrote:Three round burst on the "standard" M4? That is just plain stupid. Now that I think about it we should change the three round burst mode on all the M16s and M4s to full automatic.

M16 & M16A1 had full auto mod but it was changed in to 3-burst ( M16A2 ) due to highly innacurate full auto fire - 4th round in a burst tends to be 10% accurate comapring to the 1st round ( something like that , dont remember exactly ) . So burst was restricted to 3 rounds .

Lampshade111 · Post by **Lampshade111** » 2007-06-10 17:15

The three round burst idea is part of 1980s thinking that if the Soviets attack ammo is going to be used up very quickly and the three round burst would limit that. Back in the 60s/70s soldiers in Vietnam had a bad habit of spraying alot of ammo on full auto when only a quick burst would do so the three round burst was a good idea. Of course these days our Army our soldiers are better trained. Yes the three round burst is effective in a rifle with a high rate of fire but in trained hands I think full auto can have some advantages. This is just my opinion however, I can live with the three round burst as I don't dive and empty magazines like you think.

The main reason 5.56x45mm is used is because it has much less recoil than full sized rifle caliber ammo, it is lethal and accurate well over typical combat ranges, and it allows for more ammo to be carried and lighter weapons used. Of course there is alot of debate over how lethal it is. Perhaps we should switch over to better ammo too.

wojing_rotorhead · Post by **wojing_rotorhead** » 2007-06-10 18:48

Honestly the army has cooler toys, stryker, m1114 gaurdian, apache, ch-47, 58-d, m240 bravo machine gun, they are also the ones that fly the little birds, so it only makes sense to throw the us. army in there...

Post by **Nickbond592** » 2007-06-10 19:14

ZanderArch wrote:The American Military are efficient, they tend not to go over kill or anything like that.

lol

Post by **motherdear** » 2007-06-10 19:22

1 round = accurate fire
burst = good in close combat and middle range
auto = good at taking down masses

and since you normally won't attack huge amounts of enemies you won't need the full auto function to waste ammo with either.

if you read some tactical books and other military literatur from ex spec ops or soldiers you will know i'm right.

Post by **motherdear** » 2007-06-10 19:23

1 round = accurate fire
burst = good in close combat and middle range
auto = good at taking down masses

and since you normally won't attack huge amounts of enemies you won't need the full auto function to waste ammo with either.

if you read some tactical books and other military literatur from ex spec ops or soldiers you will know i'm right.

ZanderArch · Post by **ZanderArch** » 2007-06-10 21:33

'[EtE wrote:nickbond592']
ZanderArch wrote:The American Military are efficient, they tend not to go over kill or anything like that.
lol

Well, okay... We try to save money, that better?