Project Reality Forums

Ok, this was already suggested a long time ago but the suggestor hadnt played PR before (he was downloading it as he was typing) and it wasnt taken seriously. The idea is that the British Army retired the irons on the l85 since 2006 and having them ingame makes the Brits look like cadets. It might be more realistic to have the SUSAT as the primary optic (as they are more common than the irons) on kits (rifleman specialist, medic, engineer, HAT, crewman? etc) but still avalible by personal choice for CQB (right clicks like the officer kit or the rifleman irons on the spawn screen).

the DEVs are aware of when irons and the susat (or alternative) are used

the problem is that the scoped kits aren't as good in CQB, so PRs gameplay depends on a mix.

edit

also, there are definately situations where irons are used afaik.
YouTube - Air Traffic Controller - Final Diary

^ the ATC diaries from the RAF youtube channel

edit 2, lol I think I misred your post.

afaik all kits are getting a scope/irons selection anyway.

will this be in 0.9?

I would love to see the new version of the L85A2 being put into PR but I know this is a low priority thing as it is purely aesthetics. But having the SUSAT for every British kit would make it more authentic to me at least.

abbadon101 wrote:I would love to see the new version of the L85A2 being put into PR but I know this is a low priority thing as it is purely aesthetics. But having the SUSAT for every British kit would make it more authentic to me at least.

What do you mean? the L85 in PR is an A2....

Tophatter94 wrote:I'm from the United States, and I'm sad to admit I do not know much about the British Military. But last I heard, all ground forces from the UK are issued a standard SUSAT sight.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yh, your pretty much right although ive seen footage of troops in south Armagh and they had night vision scopes on theirs, so i suppose it depends on what theyre going to be used for really.

Correct me if i'm wrong

He means the railz and hand grips you see alot of in the media now.

The British forces have been trying out ACOGs, there's a whole thread about that someplace around here.

Dr2B Rudd wrote:He means the railz and hand grips you see alot of in the media now.

The British forces have been trying out ACOGs, there's a whole thread about that someplace around here.

Ah I see, and imo teh 133t railz and ACOGs look **** on the SA80s, it always felt like a more traditional rifle to me, not some uber-l33t tacticool weapon that you can customise with lazorz and railz and even 'OMGl33t carry handles that you got off a SAW' according to the COD developers...

driver-ch-driver wrote:What do you mean? the L85 in PR is an A2...

the new sa80a2 in action

When was that pic taken? im not really too knowledgable about the British army weapons but the British army use ironsights now instead of scopes dont they?

OH NO! i just typed wrong! um...i meant replacing the irons with scopes not replacing the scopes with irons!?!

BogusBoo wrote:British army use ironsights now instead of scopes dont they?

wut? erm.. nope.

BogusBoo wrote:im not really too knowledgable about the British army weapons

Neither am I but lol, just lol.

Well yes afaik most british troops are given a susat but surely that doesn't stop troops taking them off and putting irons on.

Also again Afaik in jungle training British troops use Iron sights as the Susats get misty etc due to humidty, though thats what im remebering from another thread so a MA or someone who knows this shiz nit would be best to say.

Doesnt the SUSAT have the reserve ironsight on top of it, which they use in CQB when they have their SUSATS mounted, the only flaw being that it would be hard to incorporate thus the DEVs chose for the easier option?

MaxBoZ wrote:Doesnt the SUSAT have the reserve ironsight on top of it, which they use in CQB when they have their SUSATS mounted, the only flaw being that it would be hard to incorporate thus the DEVs chose for the easier option?

yes, thats pretty much it.

BogusBoo wrote:When was that pic taken? im not really too knowledgable about the British army weapons but the British army use ironsights now instead of scopes dont they?

i dont understand what you mean

[R-COM]Cheditor wrote:Also again Afaik in jungle training British troops use Iron sights as the Susats get misty etc due to humidty, though thats what im remebering from another thread so a MA or someone who knows this shiz nit would be best to say.

It would make more sense that the irons should be kept for the Royal Marines vs China maps (they are sometimes seen with them on jungle exercises) but the scope should be standard on the others (Basra, Sangin? etc).

BogusBoo wrote:When was that pic taken? im not really too knowledgable about the British army weapons but the British army use ironsights now instead of scopes dont they?

Oh no, i was half asleep! OMG, i meant the scopes not the irons! ops:

They use the Scopes instead of the irons now dont they? because i really hate the irons ingame and alot of other players arent too keen on ironsights too, so if we put Scopes instead of irons it would make the british more realistic and more people would want to play as brits!

BogusBoo wrote:Oh no, i was half asleep! OMG, i meant the scopes not the irons! ops:

They use the Scopes instead of the irons now dont they? because i really hate the irons ingame and alot of other players arent too keen on ironsights too, so if we put Scopes instead of irons it would make the british more realistic and more people would want to play as brits!

haha, I thought you got it backwards.

Untill someone that's currently serving or knows for a fact that the British Army don't use irons any more, I'd prefer to keep them as they are.

Your statement saying that more poeple would want to play as Brits is incorrect. As me and my frined Jigsaw were totally pwning as insurgents on Basrah a few days ago, every time we were searching the bodies of our dead victims, we only picked up ironsighted Brit kits. Close quater fighting on Basrah is much easier with ironsights. The only time I'd pick a scope on Basrah as a Brit would be as an officer (occasionally), marksman or sniper but 90% of the time, i'll still go with irons. Maps like Qinling though, I'm more likely to go for a scope.

SUSAT does indeed have emergancy iron sights. Good luck hitting anything over 150m+ with the EBS (emergancy battle sight) though The fore tip nearly takes up the whole rear aperture's relief, like aiming with a fat person's thumb. Also, we do not carry an alternative sighting system in the field (at soldier level). We do not have an option of swapping out a SUSAT for iron sights. driver-ch-driver: The images you saw were either of CWS (1st gen NVS) or others that were theatre specific to NI.

SUSAT is still in use, as are iron sights. Front line troops are now kitted out with ACOG, along with the RIS handgrip and bipod).

The logistical chain has kicked in, so it's common sense to realise that with ACOG now being first choice, SUSAT has moved to second and iron sights, third. When they trailed ACOG as a UOR, loads of SUSATs were held in theatre for a year in case of mass malfunction/breakage/decision to revert. Now they've pretty much been backloaded, and ACOG's here to stay, at the minute most previlant in-theatre.

Units that were traditionally issued with iron sights (non 'teeth arms' units) are now getting SUSATs, and Iron sight usage is indeed declining. There are however a number of reasons for keeping iron sights in the logistical system.

1) For recruits, the use of iron sights is very important for the basic marksmanship training, before moving on to using/adjusting a SUSAT sighting system. The ACOG is only in-theatre in any great number at the minute, so it is not factored into basic training. This can easily be cover pre-depolyment or when the soldier reports to their parent unit after basic.

2) Jungle warfare training/deployments mean iron sights are very handy. Typical contacts in a jungle environment max at 50m, usually 25-30m. A SUSAT is zeroed to 300m be default, and the minimum setting is 100m, and the units add unesessary weight to the complete weapon system. Lighter weapon means more maneuverability and therefore a quicker reaction time to laying down fire if needed. There's also the obvious regarding the lenses misting up. These 2 facts alone make me laugh when I see a holywood film showing *insert country title* SF unit patrolling the jungle. There's always the token sniper with his long out, with a big scope. Pointless.

3) Iron sights weigh less, and are less of a logistical burden. However, this is not a factor that affects wartime deployment (a la PR).

For CQB contacts, it could be argued that jungle combat reasoning (barr misting) is more beneficial. Quicker draw time and so on. However, iron sight/SUSAT or ACOG not withstanding, you do not use any sights if you're that close. You have the weapon as an extension of your body/arm, and where you look or point your leading body element is where the rounds go. Not even any point using a SUSAT or ironsights in a hostage situation....at 100m your SUSAT's Point Of Aim (POA) will not match your Point Of Impact (POI). It's zeroed to 300m and due to it being situated higher than the barrel, your rounds will land 2-3 inches below your POA. Meaning you just popped the hostage's head. At a range of 10m or less, heh....better going for your drop holster.

That's just some info for you all We are looking into overhauling the L85A2s, however it's not within 0.9's scope.

Sgt.Smeg wrote: every time we were searching the bodies of our dead victims, we only picked up ironsighted Brit kits.

This ^^, by far the best CQB weapon in the game, far better than the MP5