UFO: Aftershock web site expands...


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#21 Nutguy

Nutguy

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 25 posts

Posted 12 October 2005 - 12:12 PM

I was curious enough to search it out and I visited H&K's official site only to find out that the entire MP5 family has a 15/30 Cartrigde magazine (meaning either 15 or 30 rounds -your choice- I believe). So, I want my 30 round magazines back please!!! Somebody tell ALTAR they made a factual error! :P

#22 Slaughter

Slaughter

    Colonel

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway, Oslo

Posted 12 October 2005 - 03:44 PM

Ah, right! I should know, as I was equipped with an MP5 when I were in the army :P


#23 Accounting Troll

Accounting Troll

    Bridge troll

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,060 posts
  • Location:Wales

Posted 12 October 2005 - 05:37 PM

In Aftermath, the MP5 has a 30 round capacity, so it looks as if Altair have downgraded the relative stregnth of sub machine guns for Aftershock :)

Also, they haven't listed the MP7 or FN P90 :P

#24 Tycow

Tycow

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 49 posts

Posted 12 October 2005 - 07:39 PM

Accounting Troll, on 12th October 2005, 5:37pm, said:

In Aftermath, the MP5 has a 30 round capacity, so it looks as if Altair have downgraded the relative stregnth of sub machine guns for Aftershock :)

Also, they haven't listed the MP7 or FN P90 :P

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Noooooooo, I need my P90!  :)

#25 lgonggr

lgonggr

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Location:Leimuiden, NL

Posted 13 October 2005 - 11:40 AM

On the bayonet :
The history of the bayonet is quite interesting (and bloody). The English really invented them for use against the Scots. The Scots had the annoying tendency to charge en masse down a hill at the musket-armed neat lines of the British instead of shooting it out with muskets. The British always had the time to fire one volley, which never deterred the Scots. Before they could reload the cumbersome muskets the Scots would be upon them wielding lots of sharp implements. The 6 foot claymore sword was especially usefull in chopping several closely packed Brits at a time.

So a clever guy (can't recall here, google it up) invented the screw-locked bayonet. You had to take out the bayonet and literally screw it on top of the musket et voila, an instant spear. The idea was that after the first volley the Scots would face a forest of these 'spears' to charge in. Unfortunately for the British army that was sent to try it out, the Scots had so much practice with their charge-attack that they reached the lines while the troops were still busy screwing the bayonet on resulting in the usual massacre of the British. Shortly thereafter the 'modern' click-it-on-bayonet was invented and this was the effective end of Scottish resistance as it worked perfectly. It was a vital (almost decisive) advantage against all enemies in warfare untill the repeating rifle was invented and later its even more destructive friend the machine gun.

The bayonet is one of the deadliest inventions ever and it is still used in killing lots of people on a daily basis. I for one would feel a lot more secure in a battle if I had one  :P

Cheers,
Lodewijk

#26 FullAuto

FullAuto

    Catching the next pimpmobile outta here!

  • Chief Editor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,853 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 19 October 2005 - 11:48 AM

Also excellent because it doesn't interfere with the usage of your firearm, which is pretty vital.  :)

You can get 20-round magazines for the MP5 but 15/30 are the standard.  Still, at least it will be a little lighter.  :P

Erfworld - the finest comic about turn-based gaming ever.


#27 Slaughter

Slaughter

    Colonel

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway, Oslo

Posted 19 October 2005 - 02:59 PM

Speaking of light. The MP5 (standard) is about 2.2 KG (4.5 pounds) I seem to remember (I had one in the army). With a full magazine it's a little more. A Desert Eagle is about 2 KG...that's one HEAVY gun! :P


#28 FullAuto

FullAuto

    Catching the next pimpmobile outta here!

  • Chief Editor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,853 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 19 October 2005 - 03:30 PM

Hey, you can get one that weighs about 1.5kg.  :P  And if you run out of rounds you can always beat them to death with it.  Freaking Desert Eagles.

Erfworld - the finest comic about turn-based gaming ever.


#29 Kret

Kret

    Lieutenant

  • Site Staff
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 759 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 October 2005 - 04:24 PM

They're probably leaving out weapons so the comunity can add them via modding tools, maybe.
There's always some dirt to dig out

#30 Pete

Pete

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,910 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buckley, North Wales

Posted 19 October 2005 - 04:55 PM

It's more likely that either the technology has been lost (under biomass) or that to have every gun ever made is overkill (literally :P).
May your terror missions always be infested with Chrysalids.

#31 Gungadin

Gungadin

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 19 October 2005 - 05:04 PM

Kret, on 19th October 2005, 4:24pm, said:

They're probably leaving out weapons so the comunity can add them via modding tools, maybe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Exactly. You want to fight aliens with rocks and clubs, you mod them into the game. Me, I'm happy as long as I got me kalashnikovs and shotguns.
Good writeup on the history and effect of bayonets by Fullauto and Igonggr. I just read a Flashman story involving the battles of Isandlwana and Rourke's Drift, and I did get the impression that the Brits managed to beat the Zulus at Rourke's Drift using not only superior firepower (the zulus had zero) but also at close-quarters. It does indeed speak well of both the usefulness of the bayonet and the fighting spirit of the British colonial trooper.

The 30 round MP5 seems to be an error. In all other games, it has a 30 round clip. Perhaps it's a distant-future economy model?

I hope the deployable autocannon posts will be back. I really enjoyed those. You sight a few hostiles, your heavy gunner starts setting up his gun nest while the rest of the guys hold off the enemies, the heavy gunner then blows anything in his line of sight away.

Happy memories of Aftermath...

#32 Gungadin

Gungadin

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 19 October 2005 - 05:06 PM

Off topic, but what exactly do you use a Desert Eagle for? When was the last time you got attacked by somebody so badass you needed a handheld bazooka to fend off? Does it have some special position in the Israeli military or is it just for people with a big gun fetich?

#33 Pete

Pete

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,910 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buckley, North Wales

Posted 19 October 2005 - 05:14 PM

I think it's more the fact that it's name is legendary. It strikes fear into the hearts of all who have seen what it can do. Quite frankly, it is because it is a small (but heavy) cannon that it gets so much/awe/fear/respect...

...and I'm not even interested in guns! :P
May your terror missions always be infested with Chrysalids.

#34 FullAuto

FullAuto

    Catching the next pimpmobile outta here!

  • Chief Editor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,853 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 19 October 2005 - 05:25 PM

Quote

Off topic, but what exactly do you use a Desert Eagle for? When was the last time you got attacked by somebody so badass you needed a handheld bazooka to fend off? Does it have some special position in the Israeli military or is it just for people with a big gun fetich?

It's an excellent self-defence weapon.  It's large, so not very concealable, meaning you go out wearing it and people think "Jesus Christ".  All the calibres (.357/.44/.50) are pretty big, so any hits you get will definitely count.  But the small mag size and heavy recoil... *shakes head*

Quote

It does indeed speak well of both the usefulness of the bayonet and the fighting spirit of the British colonial trooper.

Not only that but the many, many hours of bayonet drill.  :P   At Rorke's Drift there were more casualties from the Zulu snipers than assegais (thrown or not).  It really was a bit of an amazing victory, considering even a conservative estimate of the Zulu forces puts them at 3,000 and the Brits at a total of 155.  I can only think of the Battle of Thermopylae where the odds were worse (300 vs 100,000), and that doesn't really count because the majority of the Persians never got to fight thanks to the environment.  The were forced to come at the Greeks a few thousand at a time, like gentlemen.  :)

Erfworld - the finest comic about turn-based gaming ever.


#35 Accounting Troll

Accounting Troll

    Bridge troll

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,060 posts
  • Location:Wales

Posted 19 October 2005 - 06:02 PM

Didn't the Persians win that one?  They would have managed a quicker victory if they had sent in their archers to begin with.

Incidentally, the Boertrekkers ended up in territory that the Zulus considered to be theirs.  There was a war that ended in a decisive victory for the Boers, who had been heavily outnumbered.  Zulu shields and assegais proved to be no match for European firearms in a war fought before they clashed with the British.

The fact that at Rorkes Drift the British lost more soldiers from snipers than assegais supports my argument that the bayonet was a relatively unimportant weapon.  The numerical advantage of the Zulu division would have given them victory if it had come down to hand to hand combat.  This is how they won at Isandwana - they managed to close in and engage in close combat against the fewer British.

The Zulu nation was geared up for war in the same way as classical Sparta.  They had an organised regiment system and the training and discipline of their soldiers was the match of the British.  The Boer and British victories against the Zulus were simply down to the fact that they had rifles and the Zulus didn't (at least until Isandwana).

#36 FullAuto

FullAuto

    Catching the next pimpmobile outta here!

  • Chief Editor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,853 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 19 October 2005 - 06:42 PM

Quote

Didn't the Persians win that one? They would have managed a quicker victory if they had sent in their archers to begin with.

Tactically, yes.  But it was a huge strategic loss.

Quote

The fact that at Rorkes Drift the British lost more soldiers from snipers than assegais supports my argument that the bayonet was a relatively unimportant weapon. The numerical advantage of the Zulu division would have given them victory if it had come down to hand to hand combat. This is how they won at Isandwana - they managed to close in and engage in close combat against the fewer British.

No, because without the bayonet the Brits would not have been able to defend the walls effectively.  Clubbing someone with a rifle butt is not as effective as shooting him and then skewering his friend through the groin.  It did come down to hand to hand combat, several times, and each time the Brits repelled the Zulus with next to no casualties.  Without the bayonet, they would have been overrun, because their rifles (Martini-Henry's) though fine pieces of equipment, were only single shot.  You had to have something to fall back on between shots.  Hence, the bayonet.
Isandlwana had nothing to do with the bayonet.  It had to do with 20,000 Zulus catching approximately 2,000 Brits encamped without anything in the way of defensive positions.  The odds won the day there.  Even then, the British killed something like 1,500 to 2,000 Zulus, and the majority of the battle was close combat.
But they failed to at Rorkes Drift, because of a number of factors.  One of which was the bayonet.

Quote

The Zulu nation was geared up for war in the same way as classical Sparta. They had an organised regiment system and the training and discipline of their soldiers was the match of the British. The Boer and British victories against the Zulus were simply down to the fact that they had rifles and the Zulus didn't (at least until Isandwana).

The training and discipline of their soldiers was nowhere near that of the British.  Which is why their shooting was so poor.  Their organisation was excellent, though.  The Zulus did have rifles, they had at least 10,000 of them at Isandlwana.  Winning is hardly ever down to the technology at hand.  Why do you think the West spent nearly half a century shitting in their pants at the prospect of an invasion of Europe by the USSR?  Soviet technology was inferior, but there was a lot more of them.

The combination of rifles, discipline, a defensive positon (not a very good one, I might add), bayonets and sheer grit saw the British through.  Zulu discipline was far from exemplary, typified by the fact that the attack on Rorke's Drift should never have happened in the first place.  Cetewayo ordered that no British positions were to be attacked.  But he was ignored.

Basically, it turned out to be a textbook example of how to defend using a small force of well-trained professionals versus what was the equivalent of a large, ill-trained militia.

Erfworld - the finest comic about turn-based gaming ever.


#37 Kret

Kret

    Lieutenant

  • Site Staff
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 759 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 October 2005 - 09:13 PM

Ok, how did you guys manage to turn a topic taling about the AS homepage into a history lesson?
There's always some dirt to dig out

#38 FullAuto

FullAuto

    Catching the next pimpmobile outta here!

  • Chief Editor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,853 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 20 October 2005 - 04:23 AM

Pure skill?

Erfworld - the finest comic about turn-based gaming ever.


#39 lgonggr

lgonggr

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Location:Leimuiden, NL

Posted 21 October 2005 - 10:49 PM

Someone has to educate the kids today. All they do is play games  :P

#40 Blehm 98

Blehm 98

    former bf2 pro... left because of hitreg...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 291 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 21 October 2005 - 11:17 PM

i would like to point out that a desert eagle is designed for when you need the firepower of a .50 caliber bullet but don't have time to pull out your 8 foot tall machine gun, or your 40 lb sniper rifle.  It is useful for when you need to put down someone in close combat very fast, without time to get larger guns or shoot them 2, 3, 4, 5 times before they go down
I was this *---* close to being a bf2 pro player, but i left because of my internet and hitreg...  meh.  Just plain meh




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users