Project : UK Forces

[CBFASI]

@ Screaming Eagle 101 & others

Caution....

Blue Beret - All Other Regiments

When the say blue, that blue is almost BLACK, its very very dark, having worked alongside Devon and Dorsetshire Regiment I would have been easily mistaken to say their berets are BLACK, thats just how dark they are.

The Army Air Corp Beret is slighly lighter than that used for UN Peackeeping, although it does fade to a lighter colour after a few years.

[Dkraver]

A little request for you to consider.
Pls make the units + more under its own class. Like the BAS team have done with there special forces helicopters.
This will make it easier to locate the units.
Shorten the Ingame player name, if you include it in the class name instead.
And shorten the addon lists.
Hope you will consider this.

[stealth]

the corps regiments have very dark blue berets as opposed to the black of the infantry regiments  

[stealth]

Stu 35, are you sure the Kevlar helmet wasn't an introduction version?

stu was in the forces for quite a while  and knows what he is talking about i also know that they will stop shrap and will deflect shots it they are not direct ie glancing hit not too sure about a direct hit though

[Eviscerator]

the russian 7.62x39mm bullet isnt 'huge' it has a lot of stopping power but doesnt compare to the 7.62x51mm nato round, dont let the width of the bullet confuse you, thats why they have two measurements in bullets i did a little searching around and the 7.62x39 is more comparable to the .223, the 7.62x39 it was designed back when engagement ranges were 100-150m, it was used because it was a lightweight bullet, so the soldier could carry more ammo, although i believe it has more stopping power than the .223, so basically, when you see 7.62 dont always think of M60-type rounds...

[screamingeagle_101]

I know that Stu 35 has been in the "forces" for a while. I'm just asking him if he's sure, because the infantry are sometimes ill-informed. Hey the SAS were ill-informed about the helmets, the SAS remember.
And I just wanted an excuse to post up that short story.

[Dkraver]

the russian 7.62x39mm bullet isnt 'huge' it has a lot of stopping power but doesnt compare to the 7.62x51mm nato round, dont let the width of the bullet confuse you, thats why they have two measurements in bullets i did a little searching around and the 7.62x39 is more comparable to the .223, the 7.62x39 it was designed back when engagement ranges were 100-150m, it was used because it was a lightweight bullet, so the soldier could carry more ammo, although i believe it has more stopping power than the .223, so basically, when you see 7.62 dont always think of M60-type rounds...

Just found a picture for those who get a little confused about the 7.62 ammunition.
From left its
7.62x51mm Nato (HK G3, FN Fal, M60, MG3, FN Mag)
7.62x39mm (AK47, RPK, RPD)
5.56x45mm Nato (M16, SA80, Famas, Minimi)

Hope it helps someone  

[Mr_Shady]

7.62x39 (7.62 short) is still a pretty big round... my dad knew a guy in northern ireland who was hit in the elbow by an AK47. Not only did it rip out his elbow, it dislocated his shoulder with the impact and broke his wrist when his arm twisted. A bad day out...

I don't much care for 5.56mm NATO, the rationale behind it is that you can carry twice as many rounds, and is more likely to put the guy down screaming. Therefore at least one of his mates has to drag him off. But if it can take 2 rounds on average to drop someone, why not carry half the amount of 7.62 and drop them with every round? A 7.62 round will tear out a fist-sized chunk of flesh once it bursts out, so even if you're wounded you are most definately out of the game, especially once shock sets in.

[Dkraver]

Well there are some other things to take into consideration as well.
For the Bloody part. Not only does the wounded one have to be carried away he also need a medical crew for operation and later for care and to rehabilitate. This also uses more suplies like bandages, medicin and so on.
[EDIT] Just forgot a thing that i was told as a soldier about 7.62 vs. 5.56. While the 7.62 as you say

A 7.62 round will tear out a fist-sized chunk of flesh

the 5.56 will bounce on the bones inside you body doing a lot of internal damage. [END EDIT]

Other reasons is like you said lower weight, but also that it is much easier to learn a soldier to hit his target with a 5.56 because of the lower recoil, which in the end means less training time but also that the chance of hitting a target is much bigger than with the 7.62.

[vade_101]

Some new oxygen renders of the SAS and Paras added to the site

http://www.freewebs.com/bibmi/

[Mr_Shady]

@ Dkraver

Fair point about recoil, medical considerations etc. etc. Still, I prefer overkill to underkill, so I'd rather put the enemy down for good with a couple of 7.62 rounds than wound him with 5.56. I read about the AMW Cadre in the Falklands, equipped with Armalites, and they said that they were putting about three rounds into the Argies that were holding their objective, and they were either just winding them or putting them on their arses for a bit, since they were wearing tons of layers. Of course, a 5.56mm to the head will still drop you, so I guess it's down to personal preference, experience or bias.  

[screamingeagle_101]

I would prefer to use 5.56mm over 7.62mm. I prefer accuracy over range, it's better to wound someone then not hit them at all. Also the fact that the person maybe wounded and may die later, the medics will be "wasting" med' supplies on him. Just like what Dkraver said.

[Mr_Shady]

Fair enough, but I'm just stubborn and old-fashioned  ;D A few blokes I know who used both the SLR and the SA80 said that they prefered the SLR since it had better range and punch, and was quite well made, and didn't snap down the middle when you dropped it (true story).
I'd just like to point out that it isn't the round that governs accuracy, but the weapon (although better grade ammunition does improve performance of a weapon, but that's down to the amount of cordite etc and not the calibre) and the bloke using it. A GPMG fires the 7.62 NATO round and is very inaccurate, but an L96 sniper rifle can pretty much hit the eye of a needle. Both take the same round, too.

[Dkraver]

Hmmm might not be the best people to ask   Havent tried the SA80 but all i know that have and all those i have read about shooting with it say it S****   But as you said its depends on what you like.  For myself i tried shooting with the following assault rifles: HK G3 (7.62) Diemaco C7 (5.56) M4 (5.56) M70 ((yugoslav AK47) 7.62) M16M203 (5.56). And the one i would take into a battle is the Diemaco C7. At the ranges i took down 1/2 mansize targets at 400m in first shot and at 200m i could place 5 shots in a area the size of the inner part of a cd (the hole + the non writeable part). But thats just what i prefer. but we better stop this now and get back on topic  

[Mr_Shady]

The C7 is a nice gun, from what I've heard. To be honest, I've never fired an assault rifle, but I have fired various sporting rifles and collectors guns... the best one I've tried was the Lee Enfield No.4 SMLE... the damn thing nearly dislocated my shoulder! I fired a Remington 870, which was cool too, and I even had a go with a .357 Desert Eagle, and an old .44 cowboy revolver...  ;D
That's where all my large calibre love comes from, that .303 SMLE was just great!

Okay, back on topic


Those SAS renders were cool. What's with the DPM jacket and the dessie trousers tho?   I know the SAS dressed like that out there sometimes, but they also wore arab coats, all dessies and plain sandies, like bravo two zero.