• Coolest/Ugliest Weapons v7 - SHOTGUNS
    5,001 replies, posted
Might as well post some ARMA 3 guns since they're not half bad. FUTURE KH2002 [IMG]http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/armedassault/images/a/af/Katiba.png/revision/latest?cb=20150314133429[/IMG] FUTURE SCAR [IMG]http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/armedassault/images/b/bf/MX_6.5_mm.png/revision/latest?cb=20140205021720[/IMG] FUTURE EBR [IMG]http://www.armedassault.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/MAR10_1.jpg[/IMG] FUTURE BOAT [IMG]http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/3/33/Mk20PLAINworld.jpg/600px-Mk20PLAINworld.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Taggart;49676705]the problem with the SDAR is it's monumentally retarded underwater ammo which literally disappears after 30 meters[/QUOTE] To be fair that's pretty much accurate for underwater combat. The APS assault rifle posted further up the page has an effective range of 30m at 5m depths, 20m at 20m depths and only 10m at 40m depths. In air it's not much better, still only makes about 50m.
[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;49677058]To be fair that's pretty much accurate for underwater combat. The APS assault rifle posted further up the page has an effective range of 30m at 5m depths, 20m at 20m depths and only 10m at 40m depths. In air it's not much better, still only makes about 50m.[/QUOTE] It is, until you realize that "literally disappears" is an exact term, in that the bullets do not drop after 30m in or out of the water - they straight up fucking cease existence. If you, for some horrific reason, are using the SDAR and didn't switch from the MP/UW magazines to the proper STANAGs once you got on land, you will soon know the error of your ways once you realize that you can't hit anything just 30.5 meters away.
I'd use the SDAR if you could mount optics on it (the iron sights are terrible, 30 meter zeroing makes shooting at a distance terrible) and if the disappearing bullets were fixed.
[QUOTE=Pilotguy97;49676831]snip[/QUOTE] I really wanna play ARMA 3 and I even have it, but the controls are SUPER confusing.
It's bizarre that Arma 2 runs far, far smoother for me than Arma 3.
[QUOTE=YourBreakfsat;49678733]I really wanna play ARMA 3 and I even have it, but the controls are SUPER confusing.[/QUOTE] Well, the controls are pretty much like that of every other shooter apart from the action menu system which is kinda bad
[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;49680379]arma controls aren't hard in any way[/QUOTE] It's 90% hotkeys with the rest of the keyboard, most of them for non-combat stuff.
It's really not; the most complicated part of it is memorizing the squad controls for your AI, and even that is just a one-to-ten row of functions, no harder than a MMO's ability-use. [editline]6th February 2016[/editline] Well okay, the new stance system might be a bit confusing for beginners, until you realize it's just 'stance key' + direction you want to adjust your position in. And it works fuckin' amazing, I can't recall any other shooter where you can get your rifle straight down flat along the ground for shooting under cover.
[QUOTE=Pilotguy97;49676831]Might as well post some ARMA 3 guns since they're not half bad. FUTURE KH2002 [IMG]http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/armedassault/images/a/af/Katiba.png/revision/latest?cb=20150314133429[/IMG] FUTURE SCAR [IMG]http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/armedassault/images/b/bf/MX_6.5_mm.png/revision/latest?cb=20140205021720[/IMG] FUTURE EBR [IMG]http://www.armedassault.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/MAR10_1.jpg[/IMG] FUTURE BOAT [IMG]http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/3/33/Mk20PLAINworld.jpg/600px-Mk20PLAINworld.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Too bad you can't say the same for the vehicles. You trying to tell me this is what vehicles will be 20 years in the future Bohemia? [T]http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/armedassault/images/2/24/Arma3-kamysh.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140128005818[/T] [T]http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/armedassault/images/6/63/Arma3-varsuk.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140128005952[/T]
I think the vehicles are pretty nice
Aren't pretty much all the ground vehicles things that actually exist?
[QUOTE=Araknid;49683026]Aren't pretty much all the ground vehicles things that actually exist?[/QUOTE] The two up there kinda look like a vaguely more futuristic BMP and T-90 [img]http://puu.sh/mXNDE/0177005ae7.jpg[/img] [img]http://puu.sh/mXNGU/16c5c180d7.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Sitkero;49683049]The two up there kinda look like a vaguely more futuristic BMP and T-90 [img]http://puu.sh/mXNDE/0177005ae7.jpg[/img] [img]http://puu.sh/mXNGU/16c5c180d7.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Searched it up. The BMP looking thing is a 2T stalker, which is a Belarusian designed IFV [t]https://i.imgur.com/6UXzKpf.jpg[/t][t]http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/mbt/mbt.belarus.2t-stalker.2.jpg[/t] The T-90 looking this is the T-95 Black Eagle, which is a Russian prototype tank that was cancelled in 2001. [t]http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/3/2074/12.jpg[/t][t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Black_Eagle_Obj640.png[/t] I really have no fucking clue what Bohemia were thinking when they chose the vehicles, none of them make sense. I mean really? Iran using a Belarusian IFV and a cancelled late 90s/early 2000 prototype Russian tank? [editline]6th February 2016[/editline] And NATO using Israeli tanks and IFVs. The faction that makes the most sense is the AAF lmao [editline]6th February 2016[/editline] Anyway, posting some awesome looking Czech T-72s T-72M2 Moderna (Yes, it has an independent 30mm cannon) [t]http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/3/2074/0012sahara20080101.jpg[/t][t]http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72m2_moderna.jpg[/t] And the T-72M4CZ [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/T-72M4CZ_000.JPG[/t][t]http://orig05.deviantart.net/eea3/f/2011/021/6/7/t_72m4cz_by_adamicz-d37q6az.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Araknid;49683083]I mean really? Iran using a Belarusian IFV and a cancelled late 90s/early 2000 prototype Russian tank?[/QUOTE] Almost as dumb as the not-Greeks having all modern vehicles except an IFV from the 80's because... "?"
[QUOTE=Taggart;49677067]It is, until you realize that "literally disappears" is an exact term, in that the bullets do not drop after 30m in or out of the water - they straight up fucking cease existence. If you, for some horrific reason, are using the SDAR and didn't switch from the MP/UW magazines to the proper STANAGs once you got on land, you will soon know the error of your ways once you realize that you can't hit anything just 30.5 meters away.[/QUOTE] I just tested it out on land, and I was able to hit targets about 100m out with DP rounds, so I'm guessing they fixed the bullets disappearing. Although you had to basically guess where to aim since the sights are only zeroed for regular 5.56 [editline]6th February 2016[/editline] Tested it underwater, could reliably hit a 40m target, although it was barely visible. Couldn't see the 50m target :v:
I'm partial to the SADF's vehicles. [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Rooikat_K9%2C_Waterkloof_Lugmagbasis.jpg/1280px-Rooikat_K9%2C_Waterkloof_Lugmagbasis.jpg[/t] [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Ratel_90_armyrecognition_South-Africa_008.jpg[/t] The IDF also has their shit down. They know what they're doing. [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Merkava-Mk4m-whiteback01.jpg/1280px-Merkava-Mk4m-whiteback01.jpg[/t] [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Zeev-jeep002.jpg/800px-Zeev-jeep002.jpg[/t] Then there's the Iron Dome system. [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Iron_Dome_near_Sderot.jpg/800px-Iron_Dome_near_Sderot.jpg[/t] The IDF is a solid military force when it comes to operating as well.
So look what I found at another museum yesterday [img_thumb]https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlt1/t31.0-8/12496213_10153303015792109_5737545634507405433_o.jpg[/img_thumb]
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;49683942]So look what I found at another museum yesterday [img_thumb]https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlt1/t31.0-8/12496213_10153303015792109_5737545634507405433_o.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] I cant see it, is it behind the worthless piece of shit?
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;49683966]I cant see it, is it behind the worthless piece of shit?[/QUOTE] Oh wait, here it is. [img]https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t31.0-8/12633649_10153303015872109_8840077379288250549_o.jpg[/img] [quote]"M-55s and M-42s were old pieces of equipment that needed a lot of maintenance and required hard-to-get spare parts. The gasoline-powered Dusters were particularly susceptible to fires in the engine compartment. Thus, despite its cross country capability, it was not wise to use the Duster in extended search and destroy operations in heavy jungle terrain because of excessive wear on engines, transmissions and suspensions. "On the plus side, the Duster was essentially a fairly simple piece of machinery on which the crews could perform maintenance. Better yet, the Duster's high ground clearance and excellent suspension-system design gave it an ability to withstand land mine explosions with minimal crew casualties. "Although the Duster's 40 mm shell had a terrific blast and fragmentation effect, it also had a highly sensitive point-detonating fuse that limited effectiveness in heavy vegetation. Under those conditions, the better weapon was the Quad, because the heavy .50-caliber projectile could easily punch through cover that would detonate the Duster's 40 mm shell too early for it to be effective. At long ranges, however the 40 mm shell was far more useful, particularly against field formations. The Duster also was able to deliver indirect fires by using data from field artillery fire-directions centers." "Soldiers of the 1/44th Artillery and their Marine counterparts in I Corps set the pattern of Quad and Duster operations. Because of an early scarcity of armored-combat vehicles, M-42s were first used as armor. Often thankful men quickly learned the value of high volumes of 40 mm and .50-caliber fire, both in the field and perimeter defenses. Quads beefed up the defenses of remote fire bases, while Dusters accompanied both supply and tactical convoys along contested highways to break up ambushes. Dusters of Battery C, 1/44th Artillery, led the task force of Operations Pegasus that broke the siege of Khe Sanh in April 1968. Dusters and Quads provided critical final-protective fires throughout Vietnam during the Tet offensive and later took part in Operation Lam Son 719. Whenever fire support was needed, M-42s and M-55s could be found." - Charles E. Kirkpatrick, in "Arsenal", Vietnam magazine[/quote]
Our miserable record with SPAAWs post-WW2 has always been interesting to me. We've had so many attempts but have never been able to get [I]anything[/I] right and have basically been forced to say "fuck it we'll stick some stingers on a HMMWV and/or rely on the air force" I guess you have the VADS but that isnt even in service anymore and even then it was [I]at best[/I] a mediocre AA platform [editline]6th February 2016[/editline] The Duster and VADS at least ended up being pretty darn good for ground support, IIRC [editline]6th February 2016[/editline] Failed American SPAAs? Failed American SPAAs. T249 Vigilante [t]http://i.imgur.com/aNZReAQ.jpg[/t] Neat idea, but such a high rate of fire for its caliber (50RPS on a 37mm gun!), it could only carry 5 seconds worth of ammo :v: Avenger AA platform (no not that one) [img]http://www.firearmsworld.net/usa/mg/vulcan/gau8divad.jpg[/img] Competed with the Sergeant York, but used a GAU-8 (same gun as the A-10) instead of twin bofors AGDS M1 [t]http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/facebooknations/images/b/b2/Abrams_Air_Defense.png/revision/latest?cb=20140726081142 [/t] An AA platform based on the Abrams. Never actually constructed I dont think. Sperry's Proposal [img]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/he-162/M48A5gattling.jpg[/img] Not actually sure if it received a catchy prototype name, but it was based on the Vigilante turret. Bradley ADATS [t]http://i.imgur.com/vFUm2j7.jpg[/t] Missile based system that had the ability to be equipped with a gun turret for a hat (as seen in this picture). Non-gun equipped ADATs were actually used abroad (by Canada, I think) "Liberty 1" AA system [img]http://i.imgur.com/d7tIL2g.jpg[/img] "We vomited some AA equipment onto an M1 chassis, did we win?"
The instructors had us field strip our MG3s and they randomly spread parts around you and we had to put our guns back together on time [thumb]https://scontent-arn2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t35.0-12/12657404_1087621761302067_8923874951459040362_o.jpg?oh=4f33add47d20e8b16a825ec5efc586ae&oe=56B7E917[/thumb]
~snip~
[QUOTE=markedOne;49684350]The instructors had us field strip our MG3s and they randomly spread parts around you and we had to put our guns back together on time [thumb]https://scontent-arn2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t35.0-12/12657404_1087621761302067_8923874951459040362_o.jpg?oh=4f33add47d20e8b16a825ec5efc586ae&oe=56B7E917[/thumb][/QUOTE] Do you cream your pants firing that?
You're legally required to.
The US military never could seem to get a multibarreled AA system to work, we spent a ton of money on a few projects over the years but never adopted any
[QUOTE=Sableye;49688580]The US military never could seem to get a multibarreled AA system to work, we spent a ton of money on a few projects over the years but never adopted any[/QUOTE] That would be very true... If it wasn't for the fact that [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/M16-mgmc-CAJ19451112-sc-1.jpg/640px-M16-mgmc-CAJ19451112-sc-1.jpg"]every[/URL] [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/M15_Halftrack_in_Normandy.jpg"]single[/URL] [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/M19_GMC.JPG"]American[/URL] [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/M42-Duster-latrun-1.jpg/603px-M42-Duster-latrun-1.jpg"]gun-based[/URL] [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/M163_Vulcan_2.JPEG/640px-M163_Vulcan_2.JPEG"]SPAA[/URL] that I can think of is multi-barreled... [editline]7th February 2016[/editline] [URL="http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10787&d=1295834357"]One more for the road[/URL], and [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/CSA-2005-10-03-101023.jpg/626px-CSA-2005-10-03-101023.jpg"]then one that is only single barreled[/URL], but that barrel isn't intended for AA fire.
[QUOTE=download;49686435]Do you cream your pants firing that?[/QUOTE] I managed to both cream my pants and bruise my shoulder from that bastard
[QUOTE=Riller;49689505]That would be very true... If it wasn't for the fact that [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/M16-mgmc-CAJ19451112-sc-1.jpg/640px-M16-mgmc-CAJ19451112-sc-1.jpg"]every[/URL] [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/M15_Halftrack_in_Normandy.jpg"]single[/URL] [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/M19_GMC.JPG"]American[/URL] [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/M42-Duster-latrun-1.jpg/603px-M42-Duster-latrun-1.jpg"]gun-based[/URL] [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/M163_Vulcan_2.JPEG/640px-M163_Vulcan_2.JPEG"]SPAA[/URL] that I can think of is multi-barreled... [editline]7th February 2016[/editline] [URL="http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10787&d=1295834357"]One more for the road[/URL], and [URL="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/CSA-2005-10-03-101023.jpg/626px-CSA-2005-10-03-101023.jpg"]then one that is only single barreled[/URL], but that barrel isn't intended for AA fire.[/QUOTE] I was really talking about today, the Vulcan was a stopgap and its 20mm can't really do shit against anything, you linked Ford's thing which was an expensive boondoggle never adopted, and the others were either ww2 surplus or a Bradley which doesn't do AA, and the marine LAV with AA capabilities isn't actually in use by the marines, they only make those for export markets.
[QUOTE=Sableye;49690476]I was really talking about today, the Vulcan was a stopgap and its 20mm can't really do shit against anything, you linked Ford's thing which was an expensive boondoggle never adopted, and the others were either ww2 surplus or a Bradley which doesn't do AA, and a primarily missile based system also.[/QUOTE] Which one of those were never adopted? M16 - 43-53 M15 - 43-53 M19 - 43-53 M42 - 53-63 (US forces in Panama used it until the 70's) M163 - 68-now LAV-AD - 97-? (No longer in service, can't find end-year) M6 Linebacker - 97-06
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.