Matrix Games Forums

howdy, seems this forum is not real active so, hopefully, those that are here will be willing to help. i'm not a military nut but love this game (played JA2 years ago!) and i'm not quite sure about some of the ammunition designations. I know AP is armor piercing but what is OC (9x19 OC) and what is TT (7.62x25 TT)? i'm just starting out so haven't seen all the ammo yet so what others will i see?

also, noticed that AP magazines/rounds have a red band and OC have blue, BUT the 7.62fx54 AP ammo for the SVD sniper rifle is blue banded, not red. any significance to the colors? will i see more later in the game?

thanks for any info on this and would appreciate any additional comments you have about what i'm seeing!

are you using any of the mods ?

but off hand, the OC is Russian for Hollowpoint

not sure/forget about the TT, but from the weapon type, that may be Russian for Short

(Ie, the 9mm, has a cut down round called a .380 to us, 9mm kutz to them, Kutz means short, not sure though)

There's a handgun if I recall that used the TT ammo.
 
Much Love,
Reinforce
 

Yes, that is why I think it may be a Short (that set up, is a big Cal, with a short case)

did you ever get your pink Camo perfected

OC is Russian for Hollowpoint

so basically it just boils down to armor piercing rounds, hollow points, or other. AP is special for getting thru vests and helmets, everything else is just a bullet (round), right?

There is a post around here that explains the ammo types. I'm too lazy to check the manual to see if it explains it. I think armor piercing ammo does less damage to non armor units (I think)

AP does less damage but can get through better armour. HP does more damage but gets stopped easier by armour.

HP does more damage but gets stopped easier by armour.

i have not seen ammo designated HP. are you just referring to hollowpoints in general? have you seen ammo say HP? sarge says they are designated OC (russian for hollowpoint??) i'm trying to understand all this so as to use the right ammo in the right situation.

HP=OC

if you want to use it in a certain situation to see its effect on both armored and non armored, quick save then try one type of ammo and then the next when you quick load.

How can you tell which enemies are armored?

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

How can you tell which enemies are armored?

watch for the ones that the bullets bounce off of

Aw com'n! If you wear a kevlar vest under a blouse its gonna be all puffed out! You should be able to tell who is armored! [&:] Not being able to tell kinda makes carrying armor piercing around sorta less than optimum.

not really, the Kelvar vests were nice, it was the plate Flak jackets that were bulky

with standard combat uniforms, they would fit under the blouse easily

but, for AP, that is a odd one really, any Military ammo is going to be AP, now, you may have some fancy, Heavy cored ammo, but that is not normal

Merks may have HP or others of that type, but Military wouldn't, against the law and all, besides, if you were found with it, you didn't make to a POW camp

HP illegal? I had hollow point 9mm for my Tokarev home defense pistol! Bought it at Walmart!

If my grasp of history and such is right; it's dum-dum rounds that are illegal. I think dum-dum's wouldn't just expand, they'd shatter. The international community (Europe) declared that it was a war crime to use them, given how greivous the wounds were.

It'd be cool if you could buy dum-dums in game. I'm sure a mod will be released at some point letting you use mustard gas, phospherous and other nasty things.

Anyway, if JA2 is anything to go by, HP or OC rounds will become obsolete rapidly as even random schmucks you encounter on the map will be heavily armoured from head to toe soon after the first few battles.

well, remember HP are hunting rounds, not combat rounds, they are against the law for combat (didn't say it makes sense)

(really, never understood the whole, got to be nice to the person you are trying to kill)

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

well, remember HP are hunting rounds, not combat rounds, they are against the law for combat (didn't say it makes sense)

(really, never understood the whole, got to be nice to the person you are trying to kill)

Superficially, it does seem rather bizarre: you can kill him, just don't wound him badly . . . but then whoever thought that war itself made any sense, eh?

There is at least one other "nasty" type of ammunition right? Uranium depleted rounds or something? Are those only for tanks and such, or do they actually make those for small arms too? What do they call that kind fo ammo for short?

HP (or bullets that expand in the body) were prohibited the the Hague Convention in 1899. NATO nations of today abide by it. the idea is to wound the guy so he can no longer fight you and not to make his death from that wound inevitable by having a HP round tear apart his insides.

ORIGINAL: Mack the Knife

HP (or bullets that expand in the body) were prohibited the the Hague Convention in 1899. NATO nations of today abide by it. the idea is to wound the guy so he can no longer fight you and not to make his death from that wound inevitable by having a HP round tear apart his insides.

That is interesting; it had never occurred to me that a philosophy of 'biasing the rules of war toward wounding instead of killing' was a part of the Hague Convention. I can imagine it is true though. I seem to recall that the M-16 5.56mm design is in fact an example of this, a smaller caliber tumbling bullet that is more likely to wound than to kill?

The paradoxical, or at least complex issue is this: wounding instead of killing superficially may seem to be the better option for any given individual, I'm sure any one of us would chose a "wound" over a "death blow." But if you knew you were going to get a "mortal wound" and that you would linger in agony for hours, days or weeks, would you prefer the death blow or the "mortal wound?" Now obviously these matters are always probabilistic, but one could argue that biasing weapons to wound instead of one-shot one-kill is in some sense _less_ humane, even at the individual level.

Not even to mention the group level, and the general societal weal. Quick ends to wars are arguably better (all else being equal) than short ends. If a larger fraction of troops on both sides of a conflict are being wounded and returned to duty, then it could prolong the conflict. If a soldier receieves a wound from which he can recover, and not suffer a notable disability, I would bet that in the average case, he will enthusiastically, if not fanatically return to his comrades and fight even more effectively. Obviously this is not going to be the case in every instance, but I would speculate that it is the case in most. I know if someobody punches me in the face, I'm likely to come back swingin' . . . So in essence, a bias to wound instead of killing could actually worsen and multiply the suffering of war by prolonging it and preventing a quicker end.

Don't mean to open a can of nasty worms here, but it is just fascinating that our strange species actually tries to impose moral or ethical 'rules' of humaneness on what is a fundamentally inhumane, if not immoral or unethical social process.