|
|
|
Notices |
Do you own this game? Write a review and let others know how you like it.
|
|
|
September 4th, 2005, 11:09 PM
|
|
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: GWN
Posts: 12,495
Thanks: 3,966
Thanked 5,704 Times in 2,815 Posts
|
|
Re: Andy: another possible inclusion into the UK O
Quote:
Listy said:
**shrug**
All true.. but six minutes of non-stop Vickers fire might be a different prospect to a 30 rnd Bren gun mag.
|
Why assume the Vickers fires continually or the Bren Gunner only has one magazine?
Don
|
September 4th, 2005, 11:23 PM
|
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Andy: another possible inclusion into the UK O
You know what I mean..
A vickers has 200 rounds ready to send down range. The bren gunner has to reload, and re-aim...
|
September 5th, 2005, 12:42 AM
|
|
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: GWN
Posts: 12,495
Thanks: 3,966
Thanked 5,704 Times in 2,815 Posts
|
|
Re: Andy: another possible inclusion into the UK O
Yes, and the Vickers has a higher accuracy and it also has a longer range so although the end result is a "5" HEK for both guns they do not have the exact same effect in the game. It's just one number they have in common. All the numbers work together it's not all just about one of them
Don
|
September 5th, 2005, 01:09 AM
|
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Andy: another possible inclusion into the UK O
I know, just bringing up something that seemed Like it could have been a mistake.
EDIT: Heared back from about the Armour, It's still restricted. I'd guess if we treated it like the stuff from the CR1 it wouldn't be too far out.
|
September 5th, 2005, 01:54 PM
|
|
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: GWN
Posts: 12,495
Thanks: 3,966
Thanked 5,704 Times in 2,815 Posts
|
|
Re: Andy: another possible inclusion into the UK O
Quote:
Listy said:
EDIT: Heared back from about the Armour, It's still restricted. I'd guess if we treated it like the stuff from the CR1 it wouldn't be too far out.
|
We are treating is as if it were Chobham front and side and the upgrade numbers are similar to the numbers that upgraded the Chally 1 to a +. We debated the ERA idea and looked at the photos and kept coming back to Chobham although there is a very real possiblity ERA *may* have been tried in tests at some point we just don't know and as you say it's restricted infomation ( I wouldn't tell anyone what my tank could do or couldn't do either that's why many of these "debates" about armour and armour penetration are conjecture on everyones part, usually tainted by nationalism.). The blocks on the front are similar to ERA blocks but also different . It may be they were designed to be put in place when in an "active enviroment" with simple tools so they are blocks that slide together. There is also the possiblity they were made this way to look like ERA to fool people ( easily done )or a third possiblity is they are Chobham than could be replaced by ERA if required and that's why they are the same size and shape as ERA
The tank will be in the patch with a CS version as well and a new Icon for European and Desert conditions with our best guess as to how the armour package works in the "real". world.
Don
|
September 7th, 2005, 01:02 AM
|
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Andy: another possible inclusion into the UK O
Got it!
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/n...-04/030460.pdf
Page 19, on that PDF.
Page 25 has some stuff on Infantry mods.
Quote:
Enhanced armour protection
In October 2002, the Department approved a separate Urgent
Operational Requirement to fit a new generation of appliqu� to 137 Challenger 2 tanks, of which 116 vehicles were
deployed to theatre. The total cost of this package was �8.8 million.
|
So looks like the EAP is better than the stuff on CR1..
|
September 7th, 2005, 10:12 AM
|
|
Shrapnel Fanatic
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: GWN
Posts: 12,495
Thanks: 3,966
Thanked 5,704 Times in 2,815 Posts
|
|
Re: Andy: another possible inclusion into the UK O
Quote:
Listy said:
Got it!
So looks like the EAP is better than the stuff on CR1..
|
So they say.... ( I would.... wouldn't you?) I suppose Chobham has been improved in the last 14 years.
However, those side hull packs sure do look like the old ones .
I'll take this all into consideration
Don
|
September 7th, 2005, 06:02 PM
|
|
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dundee
Posts: 5,957
Thanks: 465
Thanked 1,899 Times in 1,237 Posts
|
|
Re: Andy: another possible inclusion into the UK O
Hmm - "landies" was what we called land rovers, not "lannies" !
Cheers
Andy
|
September 7th, 2005, 06:19 PM
|
|
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dundee
Posts: 5,957
Thanks: 465
Thanked 1,899 Times in 1,237 Posts
|
|
Re: Andy: another possible inclusion into the UK O
The armoured landies seem to be Ex-NI kit.
Would need own segment as simply armouring a utility vehicle will not give it the "protected" flag for pax, so these will "fall off" if the vehicle is hit (as with tanks or soft vehicles). Needs to be a proper APC class of its own - not sure if worth bothering with, for a few items.
ISTAR - is a tripod mounted thingy, there is already an OP with such.
The game needs 40 vision for TI (it has no differentiation of NF kit other than range 40+ is see through smoke super stuff) - so it cannot handle modern small man-portable TI other than giving 40 (2 Km) range and at a huge cost (when in reality we really need TI with a 500m or so range - will not fit game engine ).
Though plenty of scouts etc have this 2Km+ TI vision - a bit much in reality. Support sectios could have it, or just cross attach a scout/TI (unit 174 - which as a 2007 start date ATM) to the platoon ?.
Cheers
Andy
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|