The Leprechaun!

VFG and hold the M4 by the magwell.... booo... hissssssssssssssss!

hello just updated my british army load out got the gloves, mk6 helmet, DD rail, boots I upgraded my ICS SA80 with a madbull tight bore 6.03 barrel and hop up its shoots like a dream now AND ive got used to using it right handed now oh and got myself a WE glock 17 well its a g18 but I use it like a g17 my site I go to just got a chopper on site you can guess all hell broke loose trying to defend it but really good fun

I thought Bluestone 42 was a bit poor to be honest, the humour was fairly childish and it had a very predictable script. More akin to a student film rather than a professional BBC production. But as far as inaccuracies in technical details and equipment go, that sort of thing may bother those who think that everything in the text books is how it actually is in reality, but it very rarely is, especially when abroad where supply logistics can often be a problem. And as others have pointed out, it's meant to be entertainment, not a documentary, so I think we can let some technical detail inaccuracies slide too.
 
In any case, there are loads of examples of people using non-standard issue gear or modifying equipment in the field during times of war: Battle of Britain pilots painting their Mae Wests with yellow dope so they'd stand out if they bailed out into the Channel. M113 APC crews putting flak jackets on the floor of their vehicles to increase the armour, and knocking up steering handle extensions so they could sit on the roof to drive and avoid being killed if a track went over a mine. Soldiers in Afghan and Iraq buying their own boots and wearing keffiyahs (before they were issued). Vietnam war door gunners spot welding an empty rations peach can onto the side of their M60s to make the rounds feed into the breech better. M79 Blooper gunners removing the front sight from the weapon so it didn't catch on bushes and aiming by guessing the tilt angle instead. F86 Saber pilots in Korea removing the lead computing optical sight from their aircraft and replacing it with a piece of well chewed gum stuck in the middle of the windscreen. Soldiers in tropical and dusty climates dropping their M16A1s and using AK47s instead the moment they could get their hands on one. Kriegsmarine Uboat crews in WW2 wearing British Army Battledress tops from captured stockpiles in France. Huey crews in Vietnam painting their (white) issued helmets green. Israeli pilots flying Avia S99 (Messerschmitt bf109s) fighters in the war against Egypt. Egypt using the C47 transport aircraft as a bomber against Israel. Red cross and Red Crescent medevac vehicles mounting guns, despite this being against the Geneva Conventions etc, etc, and I'm sure you can all think of many more examples.
 
Non-standard stuff and modified equipment is really quite common on the front line, so unless an anomaly in a movie or TV show isn't blatantly stupid, patently impossible or obviously anachronistic, then we can't really say it is inaccurate.

me with the sections LSW (got my L85 on my back) just before my first deployment
 

I tend to find that the best results are achieved by not stopping to think in CQB. Whatever you are going to do, do it fast and with a sense of purpose. Don't hang around the doorway until the people inside know you are getting ready to go though it. Get the hell through that doorway and start shooting people before they can get prepared.
With practice you will learn where people are likely to be. People who go to a CQB site frequently tend to just learn how to do this and will instinctively stride into the room moving fast and putting bursts into corners.

So I was playing around on Arma 3 today and created some high quality images I wanted to share with you and see what you thought..
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

This thread

Hehe, it's funny seeing how angry and frustrated jcheeseright gets over a mistake about a plate carrier. True nerdy gearwhore. Haha.

Hell yeah!!! Bestest gnu out there!!!!!
 
 
I wanted something that had some resemblance to a short magazine lee Enfield.

clean the barrel once when you first buy it, carefully.
 
After that unless you drop it in a puddle or somehow get mud inside the barrel leave it alone and it'll work for years without issue. Start pulling it to bits to 'grease the gears' etc and you'll have problems.

You are a master at the art of invisibility

WTF - JustBBGuns are gonna be there ???
 
checked the dates and it ain't 1st April - hmmm
now that chubby bastid owes me a mag - actually 2 and at least 3 choccy bars
plus sent me wrong stuff and on occasions did not inform me of the whole truth
(this was the part when chubby's lips started to move = liar)
 
surely you can't be serious....
 
I am serious - and stop calling me Shirley
 
The JustBBguns stand will be heaving I bet.
 
LWA will be thinking - bloody hell they must be coining it in
then Pro Airsoft informs them that all them people at JBBG stand
are RETURNING their lemon guns and demanding their money back from chubby the liar

Fair comment, and I do indeed have bookshelves literally groaning under the weight of the hundreds of factual books I have on all kinds of warfare, from medieval times right up to modern day, as it is certainly a major interest of mine and is something I know we can all learn from. Funnily enough, when people come to my house and see the guns all over the place and all the books on warfare, they are often incredibly surprised, since they generally know me as some pony-tailed guitar playing lefty who is fairly anti-war for the most part, although even though I am of the opinion that war is a truly horrible thing I would never say that there can be absolutely no justification for going to war, and that opinion stems from having read a lot about it. So what I tell them, is that if one is not prepared to learn from history, then one is neither equipped to comment on it, nor able to avoid repeating its failures. But I still think that some of my friends find it difficult to reconcile the fact that I could actually be hugely interested in warfare, but almost always dead against it if and when it occurs. That's why I like airsoft, the weaponry and equipment is generally very realistic, but it is quite literally 'war without tears'.
 
But with regard to military novels being largely pointless when there are so many factual accounts to be read, I would say that there are still plenty of reasons to read novels on the subject, since there are many wars from history where there is very little concise reading material. A good example would be the Roman Empire. Most people are fairly convinced that all Roman troops were kitted out in shiny Lorica Segmentata, wielding a gladius, and carrying a rectangular semi-circular shield, painted red with a yellow lightning bolt design on it, because that gear looks cool and, as a consequence, is what Hollywood goes for, a bit like when they have every Wehrmacht soldier carrying an MP40. But there are actually only two sources of genuine information for that notion, Trajan's column in Rome, which depicts that segmentata equipment, and a very badly preserved section of a shield which was recovered from a cave in the early Twentieth Century, and it is known that segmentata armor was used in only a small period of the Roman Empire's term. So in order to become really knowledgeable about Roman Army equipment, or their tactics, you have to become quite the scholar in terms of reading material, studying dozens of books from academic authors such as Adrian Goldsworthy and the like, and that kind of commitment to study is not for everyone. Nor can you solely rely on writings from the time, such as Julius Ceasar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico if you want to get a true depiction of his campaigns in Gaul and Ancient Britain, because for one thing, he was writing them with a view to setting himself up for a political career when he got back to Rome, so they are largely propaganda, and for another, he doesn't half dress up some of the battles where we know in reality he got his arse kicked. Thus when someone such as Simon Scarrow writes works of fiction about the Legions, he has taken the time (as I have too) to become widely read on factual studies of the Roman army, its order of battle, tactics and equipment, thus Scarrow's novels are both entertaining and as accurate as we can hope such a book to be, which means Joe Blow can pick one up and read it, learn something accurate, but without having to read tons of other stuff on the subject.
 
The same is true of the Napoleonic Wars. You can certainly find many factual books on them, and I have many of them myself, but the average reader is more likely to be inclined to read Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin series of novels, because for one they are brilliant, but perhaps more importantly, they are brilliantly researched, and thus as accurate as we could hope for. Whereas if you want to read something from someone who was actually genuinely experienced in those naval battles, you're basically limited to a smaller choice of books, perhaps most notably, the brilliant Mr Midshipman Easy, by Frederick Marryat, who is notable for being an author that even Charles Dickens was in awe of. Marryat was genuinely a midshipman on board HMS Imperieuse in 1806, and went on through the ranks to end up as a Captain, so his novel is written with knowledge and wit, and is, naturally enough, one of my favourites. Thus the average person who fancies a bit of a read on Napoleonic warfare is far more inclined to do so via Bernard Cornwell's novels about rifleman Richard Sharpe, or Patrick O'Brian's Captain Aubrey, than they are to read an 1849 copy of Nautical Routine Spars and Rigging, and yes, that one genuinely is on my bookshelf lol. Fascinating it may be to history buffs, but I know the average person wouldn't want to trawl through that to learn that the term 'I don't like the cut of his jib' refers to the Bourbon alliance's practice of trimming their jib sails smaller to allow better steering in the strong winds found in the bay of Biscay, thus enabling British captains to identify French warships when they were still a long way off by their smaller jib sails. Far more exciting to read Captain Aubrey saying, 'I don't like that jib, it's cut too small to be a British ship.' You still end up learning the origin of the term, but in a more entertaining and accessible way.

that acog, lol

saw this on arnies love it!

 
falcon, wtf is that video
monty that is pretty hilarious, as with suzuki's video as well!

This wins.
 
http://youtu.be/EBtd3H3Qdi8

*Cryenamic

Spotted you on fb t'other day, GK...
 

Finally sprayed the TM
 

I apologise in advance, there is going to be some rambling ahead! Effective use of radios can change your game in a big way, lots of people have them but very few use them effectively to communicate with one another. The ability to coordinate your team across distance and to pass information around quickly is invaluable, but to do it effectively you need to know what you're doing... 99% of airsofters don't know what they're doing with a radio and so 99% of the time an airsofter's radio is just another useless bit of junk they hang off their rig. Don't be that guy! First rule, the one you should never, EVER break is the following:
LISTEN before you TRANSMIT, if two radios are transmitting on the same frequency at the same time no one gets either message! The key to effective radio communication is brevity; BREVITY noun 1. shortness of time or duration; briefness : the brevity of human life. 2. the quality of expressing much in few words; terseness: Brevity is the soul of wit. The second definition there is really what we're after, your transmissions should be short but meaningful. If you have a piece of information that you feel is important to pass on to other members of your team then do so, but before you do, stop and think for a second; Is this information actually useful? Will transmitting 'tango down' like a badass mofo rainbow six operator benefit the team's awareness of the current situation or your intentions? If the answer is no, then kindly STFU.
How do we achieve brevity while still effectively communicating all of the information required? Simple, you use a standard message format and only transmit what you absolutely must to get the message across. I'll include a glossary of terms at the end, but for now I'll work through examples. The standard NATO voice procedure for passing a message (as laid down in APP1E, for those with access to it that wish to error check me) is as follows: YOU this is ME, this is my concise message, OVER. Breaking that down it's a very simple construct, but all of it is there for a reason;
YOU - who you are addressing the message to, we lead with this to get their attention - everyone listens for their own name/callsign. ME - who are you? the identity of the person passing the message is not always useful information however it always helps provide context for the recipient. OVER - I have finished transmitting, and require acknowledgement/a response. Key with this is to put all of the information needed into one concise message, e.g: AARON this is JAMES, four blues moving to the south of the fort, heading towards fuel dump, OVER From that message, AARON knows that JAMES is calling him, and that he has seen four blue players, he's stated their location and their direction of travel. AARON from that message has gained insight into the situation in game and could potentially be in a position to act upon it.
 
As the message ends with OVER, AARON should acknowledge receipt of it, the standard format for that is:
JAMES this is AARON, roger, OUT OUT - at the end of the message this indicates that you have finished transmitting and do not require a response If you need to transmit a message everyone, the format remains largely the same, you just skip off the recipient's callsign. Since you're not addressing anyone specific there's no requirement for acknowledgement, so you should end the transmission with OUT. this is JAMES, four blues moving to the south of the fort, heading towards fuel dump, OUT The standard, pointless, airsoft way of passing that message is generally as follows;
Spotted four blues in my 12 o clock, anyone else see them? I hear that crap week in week out, and that's me being generous, normally the message goes on way longer than that with way less useful information! The sender hasn't identified them self or stated any kind of location, so the message is robbed of all context, where is this person? where is his 12 o clock? Where are those blue players going? No one gains anything from that message, it uses up time on the radio that could be used to pass useful information for the benefit of everyone!
One I actually heard a few months back (at Black Ops Cribbs in Bristol) was a cracker, and summed up to me why some people shouldn't ever be given a radio. The game being played was a bomb-delivery game, where the other team needed to deliver a bomb to a gate at the end of a road that runs through the site; the bomb was not allowed to leave the road under any circumstances. As a defender I had called over the team channel requesting someone update me on the location of the bomb, so I could get myself into an effective position to help stop it so I said the following: this is James, I am in the barracks, does anyone know the location of the bomb, OVER I passed my location, so others on the site knew where I was and what I could see and I requested a bit of information from anyone who had it, finishing with OVER to indicate that I'd like a response. The response I got went something like this, it was probably longer:
Yeah I saw it a minute ago but I died and had to go back to respawn cos I'd already been mediced once, it's on the road. That was the point where I switched my radio off for the day.
 

Radio do's and don'ts: DO listen before you transmit. DO ensure that the information you're passing is USEFUL and RELEVANT. DO format and address your transmissions in a standard way, it helps everyone. DO think about what you're going to say before you push the button, umm and err are not useful information! DO conduct radio checks with your team before you start, ensure everyone can both receive and transmit DON'T 'step on' other people's transmissions by transmitting at the same time as them! DON'T 'radio check' people in-game, if they're not responding it's because they either can't hear you or can't speak because they're dead. DON'T transmit unless you've got something USEFUL to say - Some examples of things that aren't useful, but get sent ALL THE BLOODY TIME follow; reloading! - no one cares. contact! - without context this is useless, format it correctly and tell people who you are, where you are, where the enemy are, how many of them there are, which way they're headed, etc. tango down! / enemy hit! / etc - no one cares how super elite you are, at all. We're OSCAR MIKE - just f*ck off, seriously now. No one says this, not even Americans. Radio words that are useful; OVER - I have finished transmitting and would like a response OUT - I have finished transmitting and do not require a response SAY AGAIN - I didn't hear your last transmission, please send it again ROGER - I received your last message and understood it NEGATIVE - no AFFIRMATIVE (sometimes shortened to AFFIRM) - yes This is just a brief (lol, not really) rambling introduction into comms use and more importantly, comms discipline. It's a really deep subject which I can rant about for hours if required, but no one wants to read that! If anyone has any specific questions about voice procedures, not radio equipment, then I'm happy to answer them in this thread. Likewise, if anyone has anything specific they'd like to add or correct please chuck it below.

I'll help Cadets - get your ruddy hair cut and shape that beret properly. Saw a pack of them in my town centre the other week and they looked like a sack of shit tied in the middle.

As a serving regular officer I can tell you that we hate all cadets equally, crowbag little shites......

Yeah, I was hardly being serious, although as a kid I genuinely did used to wonder about stuff like that; I recall that thought occurring to me when I was shown that custard experiment. For example I used to watch sic-fi programs where they'd be firing lasers at space fighters and wonder why they didn't just put a mirror coating on them to deflect the laser beams (of course I know these days that such a mirror would only work for various wavelengths of light, so the reflective particles would need to be tuneable to certain wavelengths, but evidently that is possible to do these days).
 
Naturally, the other advantage of being in a Custard-armoured facility whilst awaiting the arrival some MARV warheads from a Russian submarine, is that you can tuck into a tasty custard-based dessert whilst awaiting your own just desert, safe in the knowledge that at least when you've popped off, the custard will still be warm for quite some time, as it will spend the next 400 years being gently microwaved.

This post raises several musings for me. Firstly - just what kind of childhood did you have if you used to wonder about stuff like shear thickening fluids? Were you raised by physicists? Are you Leonard Hofstader?
 
Also - there hasn't been a Birds production facility in Birmingham for years! It was move to Banbury in 1964. The famous (notorious) explosion was there in 1981. Also - non Newtonian liquids would do three parts of fuck all against a nuclear attack. It's not exactly known for its radiation proofing abilities!
 
 
(and yes - I realise you were only semi serious but I'm tired and grumpy so nerr)