Jump to content

CyberMurph

Senior members
  • Content Count

    1,586
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CyberMurph

  1. again...Rangers tend to shoot more poorly than their regular infantry counter-part for your above stated reasons. But the rangers are a VERY small part of the overall infantry force. Also "The marines are all (yes, even the cooks) trained in the art of effective marksmanship, much more so than even your average Army Infantryman, and autofire from an assault rifle does not effective marksmanship at 300+ meters make." Still sounds like you are implying that a Marine cook gets better marksmanship training than an Army infantryman. Your second part does not make sense either. The Army trains out to 300m with 40 target exposures and 40 rounds of ammo. And that is just BRM. Not "auto fire" from an assault rifle. Heck our assault rifles don't even HAVE auto fire.
  2. Add to that the 101st ABN DIV (AASLT) in Desert Storm consumed about 400,000 gallons of fuel a day. And they are a "light" unit!
  3. QUOTE (psychophipps @ Dec 6 2004, 04:36 PM) Sez my buddy who spent a lot of time in the Rangers crosstraining with Marines. He said that their marksmanship per man was incredible and the Rangers regularly got outshot at range by the Marines infantrymen. However, the Rangers were better at snap shooting, conducting assaults and CQB as correctly denoting their sizeable price tags (and much better equipment). Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! ) Actually I read a stat in the Infantry Journal circa 1993 that Rnagers tend to shoot more poorly than their regular infantry counter-part for your above stated reasons. But the rangers are a VERY small part of the overall infantry force. And that was 11 yeras ago. The "Blackhawk Down" incident had a major effect on the US Army infantry community that was further reinforced by the experiences of Op Anaconda. Your data is at least a decade out of date.
  4. QUOTE (psychophipps @ Dec 6 2004, 04:21 PM) "Marines with equivalent MOS tend to shoot better at longer ranges than the Army". Sayz who?
  5. QUOTE (rockwolf66 @ Dec 5 2004, 10:15 PM) QUOTE I had a scope and I couldn't see squat. And the 101st had sniper rifles at the company level, my brigade had fought in Afghanistan. We also had Tanks, Brads, and Kiowa helicopters. They helped a little. I just think the notion is silly that since the Army only trains out to 300m then when confronted with a target at 500m we will not be able to engage it effectively. Long range, aim a little higher. If you can see it... well according to the handy Ballistics tables I have the 5.56mm round in 62 grain drops 50.1 inches(4.175 feet) on aveage at 500 yards. not bad given that my marlin drops it's rounds 269.3 inches(22.44 feet) at the same range. then again I'm fireing a pistol round out of a Lever actoin carbine with a 20 inch barrel. Darthmurph given the conditions that you seemed to be in the only sugestion that I have would be to close in on the enemy. We did.
  6. QUOTE (rockwolf66 @ Dec 5 2004, 02:49 PM) from the pictures you provide Darthmurph you could really use some M-21 Rifles. then again that dust looks really nasty as it makes things blend into the background. I had a scope and I couldn't see squat. And the 101st had sniper rifles at the company level, my brigade had fought in Afghanistan. We also had Tanks, Brads, and Kiowa helicopters. They helped a little. I just think the notion is silly that since the Army only trains out to 300m then when confronted with a target at 500m we will not be able to engage it effectively. Long range, aim a little higher. If you can see it...
  7. QUOTE (psychophipps @ Dec 5 2004, 11:45 AM) Trained as well, yes. In fact, I'm certain that the Army is superior in a few areas like supporting arms and air support as they simply have more access to these. However, one of those areas of equal or superior training isn't acrossed the board per-man marksmanship. Deal. Umm...that if you can hit a target effectively at 500m then you can effectively hit a target more often at closer ranges? Like, say, 300 meters or less? Also, if they can't "even see" the targets at 500m with an M-16A2 and iron sights, how come they hit them so often? Because they are shooting at pop-up targets with a clear line of sight at Camp Pendleton. The Army pioneered engagning pop-up targets, with one round per target, when the marines were still instisting on long-range accuracy againts un-moving black bullseye targets. When they adopted the same system, they knew the Army was qualifying out to 300m, so the USMC established 500m for their max range. If it were not for the Marines always trying to out-hardcore the Army the USMC would not be what it is today. But don't bother to thankus, really... See photos below for an engagement at 400m under combat conditions. And you said that the average Marine is better trained than even Army Infantry. That is the sttement I am strongly disagreeing with.
  8. QUOTE (psychophipps @ Dec 4 2004, 11:10 AM) What? Reality is an issue with you? It's a known fact that every single Marine gets four times the money spent per-man than the Army for marksmanship training. Now add that every single Marine has to qualify at a range of 500 meters, or 200 meters longer than the Army M-16 training ranges even go, and you can see that Marines are obviously better marksmen on the average. Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! ) First of all you are referring to the Army's BASIC rifle marksmanship, which is for everybody. THere is also an ADVANCED rifle marksmanship for combat arms soldiers. Feel free to look it up. Second we qualify at 300 meters so they qualify at 500. If we qualified at 500 they would use 700. I have been in combat, you cannot even SEE targets at 400 meters with an M-16A2 and iron sights. So what's the point? Third the Army is is 2 1/2 times the size of the Corps (more if you include Ntional Guard) so we really don't get to train our dental hygenists to be riflemen. See the Marines don't even HAVE dental hygenists, the Navy provides them with those and other services. Fourth our infantry are every bit as well trained as theirs, if you don't believe me call the Ft Lewis PAO and ask to come and observe some 2ID soldiers in trainng for a "web site you write for". I bet they'll let you.
  9. CyberMurph

    Pp-2000

    If one were changing magazines in a fight, would you take the time to put the empty back in the shoudler stock position? WOuld it be worh the effort?
  10. QUOTE (psychophipps @ Dec 4 2004, 09:23 AM) And they all almost exclusively use semi-auto, even in combat. The marines are all (yes, even the cooks) trained in the art of effective marksmanship, much more so than even your average Army Infantryman, and autofire from an assault rifle does not effective marksmanship at 300+ meters make. Phipps, are you trying to get me started again!?
  11. I made my players specify a weapon model when they bought the skill. If they bought "Rifle- FN FAL" then they would take a penalty if they were using say an AK-47, for unfamiliarity. If they then used the AK regularly over time, I dropped the penalty. (Kind of arbitrary I know). Based on experience, it was a bit of a switch using an M4 carbine after using an M-16A2 for many years. But I got used to the M4 pretty quickly. I also think Psi and Phipp's ideas make sense.
  12. QUOTE (malek77 @ Nov 23 2004, 09:18 PM) QUOTE POSITIVE WAVES PEOPLE! We gotta think positive... Yeah babe, like...whatever you say man...I've had nothing put positive thoughts about that bridge! Hey! Someone got it!
  13. POSITIVE WAVES PEOPLE! We gotta think positive...
  14. QUOTE (Dog Soldier @ Nov 19 2004, 08:22 AM) State Governors are in command of the National Guards in their state. The Feds can activate them and deploy them as the the Federal Government is higher up than the state. DC is a Federal district so Federal troops would be deployed. The US is composed of 50 independent states plus assorted territories. Much is made of 'collapse' of the Federal Government. In reality this would have little effect on state governments outside of the fact that there'd be no Federal tit to suck. Collapses as protrayed in most cyberpunk fiction are actually completely unrealistic. The states have a vested interest in keeping the Feds alive even if they are a nuisance at times. The mechanism for replacing the Feds in written into law. If there were to be some massive upheaval and California or Texas thought they could secede they'd be beaten down as soon as the rest of the country got back on it's feet. Too many of the citizens in those places would not be happy with leaving the US for it to work. Actually there is a District of Columbia National Guard. DCARNG
  15. QUOTE (Webby @ Nov 6 2004, 06:25 AM) now thats how things should be! but will it work, we know there will always be some little wanker who perverts the whole thing! The best thing about little wankers is that they are easier to ignore than the big ones!
  16. Having a knife as a back up is not a bad idea. Sticking it onto the end of your rifle amkes yor rifle a touch more unwieldly and limits what you can do with the knife. Just use it as a knife.
  17. A movie about the dumbest super group EVER. Greeeat.
  18. QUOTE (DragoonCav @ Oct 10 2004, 01:26 PM) it might be more efficient to go after your man hand-to-hand and stab through the gaps in his armor to kill him Wow. You better be pretty confident in your abilities with said edged weapon. And he better be alone. There was an SF soldier in Afghanistan who received a Silver Star for killing a man with either his bayonette (or bare handed I forget) but that was at night in a highly confused situation and he was unable to use his firearm for reasons I do not recall. However I think his first choice would have been to shoot the bastard. Shoot them in the face. bayonettes are back up at best. More likely the are MRE openers. Or you can do like I did in Iraq and use it to kill the mice and scorpions in your tent.
  19. I ran a CP game based on the "Gotham By Gaslight" comics. It was kewl. It still took place in 2020, but the style / setting was 'Victorian' England.Batman was all cybered out. Gotham By Gaslight
  20. I love Maiden. I have seen them several times and have all of their CDs. However, I think every single one after Bruce left pretty much blow. I thought BNW had maybe two good songs on it, both written by Bruce. I didn't like DoD at all.
  21. QUOTE (WinterJewel @ Sep 6 2004, 11:25 AM) I can't believe you guys even remember the model number and the various types of tanks. 13 years in the Army honey. Professional knowledge. (OK, also because I'm a geek!)
  22. They're French. AMX-30Bs. AMX-30B
  23. QUOTE (Hanns @ Sep 2 2004, 01:33 AM) Sorry Muprh, it's been over 9 years since I got out and almost 12 years since I've humped a M249 SAW but the fact remains that there are better weapon systems out there. I carried a SAW for over 9 months before being promoted to humping the M60. When I was in we didn't have very many spare barrels or gloves/barrel bags like we did for the M60. The M249 barrel is a bitch to change out quickly when hot without the asbestos glove that was issued to M60 AGs. There were times when cleaning the M249 we'd have to tap the barrel out of the receiver with a wooden mallet because the gas regulator would become lodged in place with carbon buildup. You wouldn't have to hit that hard but there was no way the barrel was coming out hot without whacking on it. Granted this was with extended amounts of firing and lots of annoying jams. FWIW this is my personal experience, things might have changed or been improved. Haven't had any experience with the para style buttstocks but if they address some of the problems with the older stocks then great. There's a report for the United States Army Infantry Center, Directorate for Combat Developments, Small Arms Division and TACOM seems to agree with me on a lot of points. Interesting reading. Cheers, Hanns http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm Well, I don't know what model SAW you were issued, but you don't have touch the barrel, and the carrying handle does not heat up much at all. It is very simple to remove. I first humped a SAW in 1993. I dont think it has changed that much. If you chagne the barrel as often as the -10 says you are supposed to, you won't have the carbon build up. That is why you change the barrel. Again, most SAWs are getting the telescoping stock. The plastic 200 rd box magazine has been a problem for years, but has nothing to do with the weapon system itself. It just needs a better magazine and most of my guys got the cloth bag in Iraq. Also, you can always just pull the ammo out of the box.
×
×
  • Create New...