Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Nutster

Ed your kit is out of date :P

This thread is over three months old. Please be sure that your post is appropriate as it will revive this otherwise old (and probably forgotten) thread.

Recommended Posts

4 rifles on training ex on Salisbury plains

f2bd4309ebd18514ed11692cd638e240_zps92fdad5e.jpg

cf89027a94b5fee95b6f7171ecb7105d_zps7f17f18b.jpg

e72986d2989d3636b35864cb324064d0_zpseabc2a89.jpg

 

On another note, who thinks the tan looks naff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tan does look naff... In fact, I need to go and throw up a bit. Can't believe they're making it tan when we're pulling out of Afghanistan... Surely that's just a needless waste of time and money... Oh MoD, you so silly.

 

I do spy a Sig in the top photo though. In a magic holster. How is it staying there?!

 

My loadout is going to be based on Afghan based troops in 2011. Because then, everything I have is actually right haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me... Or does my font randomly change size in my above comment? What the hell is going on with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sig is in a serpa drop leg, mounted on his shins nearly :P

 

Looking closely, I think they're just pained tan, you can still see areas of trades/markings in black

 

And my uksf loadout is the same, pick a time frame and stick to it, the kit changes too much for it ever to be 'current' <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the font size is different. Its been happening to me as well :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Managed to sort it with an edit, just wanted to check I wasn't going mental first...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that's a serpa retention holster so the SIG is not going anywhere unless he wants it to!

 

They are def painted tan and it looks crap!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(I meant how is it staying on his leg...)

 

What does it for me is that they've left the butt pad and pistol grip green... It's not a pretty rifle anyway, but Jesus... Spectres and ACOGs are still black too, so they might as well have just left the rifles as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tan's still better camo in the woods than pure black. Everyone thinks everything new that's ever development looks stupid at first. No doubt they thought the tank was a ridiculous idea in WWI, but I know I'd pick armour instead of a horse when charging the jerry machine gun lines.

 

What they should've done is go the whole hog and do all the parts, but something's still better than nothing. We've got at least another full year in afghan, plenty of time for more potential casualties. Anything at all that minimises the risk by even the tiniest amount is worth doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sig is in a serpa drop leg, mounted on his shins nearly :P

 

If it was any higher he wouldn't be able to draw it as quick.

 

Also totally agree with CKinnerley, its not whether it looks naff or not in real life (unlike airsoft where everything has to look 'cool') but if its practical and works or is better than it's predecessor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He does have it pretty low. Unless he has short legs and really long arms that is.

 

I have mine so if i stand up arms to the side, the pistol grip is exactly where your hands are. Which is awesome for fast holstering, and ive just been told banned from AIPSC :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like we may have been wrong to laugh at W.E. when they released a tan-bodied version of their L85 GBB 2 years ago...

 

I'm sceptical that the colour of a rifle is what gives away troops positions (considering the previous 90 years of warfare) - but if it they think it'll work and help them in the field, and there's a chance that it does actually work, then fair play to them. What about non-desert warfare though? Post 2014, will we see everyone painting their kit olive-drab/brown?

 

Not something I'm in a hurry to do with my L85 though :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, tan L85 bleuch.

 

Still, if we'd asked an economics professor as far back as the 70's, probably earlier, what colour would be most prevalent in NATO forces' camouflage now, they would have had no hesitation in answering "tan". It matters not one gerbil fart when UK forces are scheduled to leave Afghanistan, there are, and as long ago as WW1 always have been, economic and hence political forces at work which would, do and will continue to make force projection into the whole area from North Africa to the Hindu Kush an essential attribute of any organisation which would wield power on the world stage.

 

You can't see the side opening buckle on that lads plastic drop leg platform because of the out of focus blob of snow in the way, Ed. I'm looking at getting one for my Palco USP - £35 on fleabay :)

 

I thought my lappy was on the blink with the font thing... phew!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the thing about painting the rifles tan even though were pulling out of Afghan is because they know that new wars wont be against Fritz or the Commies across Europe but rather in deserts in the middle east and north Africa... That's why MTP replaced DPM and not DDPM because it bizarrely makes mire sense to have two desert patterns than a desert and a woodland..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard they were getting rid of the L85 in the next few years, seems a waste of money getting a new paint job on a weapon your going to replace soon.

And I've got to agree it looks poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didnt even spot the tan until you guys mentioned it :) Must be going blind...

 

Then again it does blend better with his camo than a black one... holster seems just right on review so it doesn't get tangled up in his jacket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies if my post came over as sarcastic, it wasn't meant to.

Just saying that of all the things that give away an infantry patrol, the colour of their rifles seems pretty low on the list. (Unlike say, the rather large vehicles which drove them there, or the fact that there are 20-ish men moving about).

 

And I'm genuinely curious as to what the plans are, and if the MoD's solution to equipment planning is "hope we're fighting somewhere tan works".

 

The problem with saying "oh, all our next wars will be in the desert" is that it isn't necessarily true and a lot of things can happen in the space of a year or two - this kind of thinking has screwed the MoD over repeatedly.

Few people expected the Falklands Islands to kick off, which is why most of our kit was ill-suited to the climate (very few waterproofs or cold weather kit, boots that were only usable in urban areas). For years after the end of the Cold War people were convinced that we would still be fighting wars in Northern Europe or in Asia - right up until 2001 it was thought that any conflict wouldn't be desert areas, which is why even in 2002, prior to Iraq 2, most of our kit was still being designed towards N.Europe or Asia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard they were getting rid of the L85 in the next few years, seems a waste of money getting a new paint job on a weapon your going to replace soon.

And I've got to agree it looks poor.

 

Someone's been telling you porkies, it's going to be around for a long while yet.

 

The paint also isn't a universal thing that's being applied throughout the whole military, far from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone's been telling you porkies, it's going to be around for a long while yet.

 

Much like the classic "sarge says we'll be getting the L98-A2 next year!" comments that pretty much every cadet I know has been saying since 2003... :lol:

I was told that 2025 is when the MoD will start the process to find a replacement rifle, meaning it could well be in service for longer than that. (Hell, the process to replace the L1A1 was started in 1965, look at when the first L85A1 was actually issued...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I was told the rumour by a friend who's a reg, still means it won't happen for ages I know, but it is probably going to happen. Apparently its not a very popular rifle.

 

And if you thought the A2 was bad you havent heard the hype over MTP yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with saying "oh, all our next wars will be in the desert" is that it isn't necessarily true and a lot of things can happen in the space of a year or two - this kind of thinking has screwed the MoD over repeatedly.

True, but it's like the other side of that old saying "If the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails.", because, assuming that's taken on board and the screws, staples, glue, etc., are recognised for what they are, the answer is simple: use an inappropriate tool or do nothing. Fortunately for us, the Foreign Office do actually have more options than military force, as Von Clauswitz observed, "War is the continuation of politics by other means." or something like that :)
Few people expected the Falklands Islands to kick off, which is why most of our kit was ill-suited to the climate (very few waterproofs or cold weather kit, boots that were only usable in urban areas).
Indeed, but there were overriding political reasons why that conflict went ahead regardless of our military preparedness, in fact, in spite of the hardship our service personnel would have to suffer as a result of that ill-preparedness. Then again, to a politician, an individual soldier whom gets shot because their fingers are too cold to shoot first is simply a statistic, simply part of the equation 'public support and financial cost vs gains'. What we, as observers and potential statistics, have to understand is that the 'gains' side of the equation not only looks very different from inside the corridors of Whitehall to our own perspective, but also can never be admitted without unbalancing the equation. In the Falklands, for instance, how would we view 'remaining in power' as sufficient gain to justify even one soldier's frostbitten finger, let alone life?
For years after the end of the Cold War people were convinced that we would still be fighting wars in Northern Europe or in Asia - right up until 2001 it was thought that any conflict wouldn't be desert areas, which is why even in 2002, prior to Iraq 2, most of our kit was still being designed towards N.Europe or Asia.

Of course the military would always like a full toolbox, but it has to be paid for. If the makers of hammers have friends in Whitehall, hammers will remain their primary tool. It seems that someone who makes those fencing tools, hammer / nail-pry / pliers all in one, has friends in Whitehall now...

 

If a situation which this multi-tool cannot fix easily crops up, once again it will have to be dealt with by diplomacy or service personnel will be 'screwed'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparantley, they're updating the LSW too (that information is from zeroin, so feel free to throw it out the window)

img0184le.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sceptical that the colour of a rifle is what gives away troops positions (considering the previous 90 years of warfare)

 

Its not so much just the rifle being camouflaged that will help, but if all the kit is camouflaged (or more so than before) then it becomes far more effective. Hell look at the spread of camouflaged pieces of kit since the Second World War (starting off with Denison Smocks and now almost all the kit issued has a camouflage pattern on it). I'm surprised military forces haven't jumped on camouflaging weapons sooner (cost?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised military forces haven't jumped on camouflaging weapons sooner (cost?)

 

Cost might play a factor, more likely is the lack of common sense further up the chain :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...