КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ на AIRSOFTGUN.RU

Бронежилет MK1 еще используется? На фото из а-стана подобный бронежилет я не видел. В каком конфликте данный бронежилет используется.

Чуловек писал(а):Бронежилет MK1 еще используется?

Нет, на дворе эра мк4.

Спасибо за ответ, тогда логичный вопрос - до какого года использовалась данная модель?

Где? В Афганистане, в территориальной армии? Подразделение какое?

Да в Афганистане.

в 2007-08 еще мелькал.

Сравнение CS95 и PCS

Первым вариантом новой униформы в расцветке MTP, который поступил в части британской армии, стал CS95 созданный на основе покроя существовавшей формы расцветки DPM образца Soldier-95, однако чуть позже была выпущена вторая версия униформы — PCS (Personal Clothing System) с некоторыми отличиями в покрое одежды, которая и является сейчас основной и поставляется в вооруженные части британской армии в соответствии с правительственной программой перевооружения.

Вся статья "MTP: Новая форма Британской армии"

Хорошо видно резервный iron sight на спектре.

Ilya S. писал(а):Хорошо видно резервный iron sight на спектре.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A17a9WhCQAAqruf.jpg:large

Ильюш, ты имеешь в виду коллиматор "Close Quarter Battlesight" фирмы Shield?
http://shieldpsd.sharepoint.com/Pages/CQB.aspx

Тох, эт я от жизни отстал просто. )
Вот кстати хорошее видео.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgOLg5SC03I

Возник вопрос, надеюсь сможете помочь, носиться ли МК4 на ДПМе?
Зарание спасибо за информацию.

Сам занимался этим вопросом, но так и не нашел ни одной фотографии :/
Вот только к 14му году из Авганистана выведут всех бритов - и, почему-то уверен, что засверкают мк4 на ДПМе на всевозможных учениях в ЮК ))))) В зеленке их врятли выпустят, чай расходы не на боевые, а вот МТП на ДПМ - думаю таскать начнут)

Инженеры в DPM и Mk4:

Интересно, а МТП чехол на каску, ДПМ штаны и ДДПМ флак - это новое гучи?:)

Я подозреваю что это с каких-то учений фотка. Одеты как бомжи.

Tolar писал(а):Сам занимался этим вопросом, но так и не нашел ни одной фотографии :/
Вот только к 14му году из Авганистана выведут всех бритов - и, почему-то уверен, что засверкают мк4 на ДПМе на всевозможных учениях в ЮК ))))) В зеленке их врятли выпустят, чай расходы не на боевые, а вот МТП на ДПМ - думаю таскать начнут)

Как раз буквально вчера говорил с сокомандником на тему на что опираться в реконструкции. Пришел к выводу, что тупо на
найденную фотку этого делать крайне не рекомендуется. Фотки с учений вообще ниразу не могуть быть ориентиром для реконструкиции и моделирования подразделения ибо, как сказал, Диабел, "выглядят как бомжи", а по факту - одевают все что есть в наличии на складе. А учебные склады мионоборны не особо спешит переоснащать.

не знаю как у других, но уменя двое бойцов в МК4 и ДПМ - отторжения не вызывают, и, имхо, вполне неплохо будут смотреться в зеленом широколиственном лесу.

Ну в чужой монастырь со своим уставом не полезу. Как считаете нужным...
Ну да, в кзс в широколиственном оно вообще сказка, но это уже не для этого раздела...

для этого существует правило "трех фоток"

Пара ссылок:
Состав блэк бэг (уже вешали, но здесь оно не потеряется)
http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/genera ... ooklet.pdf

Правила использования новой формы:
http://www.2highlandersacf.org.uk/attac ... 0Brief.ppt

И с форума аррсе интересные комментарии касающиеся разработки третьего поколения PCS

Great informative stuff on here chaps thanks. A few comments on PCS from me:

Smock - is this not an outmoded piece of kit? It is neither waterproof nor warm. It is not practical under Osprey and seems to be a legacy piece of kit. Would not a soft shell type jacket be better? These are popular out in theatre and are designed to work pretty well with Osprey for colder/wetter weather and are tidy and practical as a jacket when not wearing body armour. I realisewe need a hard wearing outer layer but cannot think of an operataional context where we won't be wearing body armour of some description, especially when it incorporates our loadcarrying kit. US have a lined and unlined variant (USAF and Army).
There are numerous locations/roles where the smock would be desirable, particularly where body armour is not required or not practical (RM are struggling with the concept of Body Armour in the Arctic for e.g.). I would agree with you that a Soft Shell might appear attractive but it isn't something that is particularly light, weather proof or adjustable to activity levels/temperature. They also are neither particularly robust or weatherproof. The advantage of the smock is that you can wear layers underneath it, it allows air to be trapped when teamed with the right layers, it quickly gets rid of warm air when you are working hard and is relatively light. It is not designed to be a warm garment in itself. This was a lesson learnt in the pre-CS95 days - a single warmth garment is not as flexible as several layers. Soft shells are also relatively bulky. There are several items in the PCS range that can be teamed with the smock to give you the same performance - the micro-fleece thermal shirt (Norwegian replacement), the Thermal smock (aka Buffalo replacing the fleece), the Lightweight Waterproof and the new thinner but warmer Softie jacket allow you to adjust your clothing to the temperature and activity. They are all designed to be lightweight and low bulk. Softshells are neither, relatively speaking. You also need to consider what these items are designed for - to be part of a combat system. If it is not going to be utilised by troops in combat, then what role does it have? As you have described it, the soft shell is very good for troops in FOBs and in vehicle patrols or low kinetic foot patrols. None of these are convincing requirements as these roles are met by other garments. Sorry. It is a nice to have and a good fashion item but it has no distinct operational role. The US PEO soldier team readily admit theirs was designed as a "FOBBIT" jacket and they have no intention of continuing its use post withdrawal from Afghanistan. And let's not forget - soft shells are more than a little expensive!

Shirt/lightweight jacket - ugly,too warm, crap velcro etc etc. Bring back the CS95 pattern for barracks/routine wear.
Ugly is a personal opinion which are subject to our past experiences. We are used to the CS95 tucked in look. The generation joining the Army now think CS95 looks old fashioned and odd because they are used to the Light Weight Jacket. The question of warmth and velcro have previously been discussed. For what it is worth - the sleeves down aspect has nothing to do with design. Instead the decision came from a panel of WO1s who decided that it looked a bit untidy and might be uncomfortable rolled up. Strange but the Royal Marines manage ok! But lets not get into that! The key question is your comment about barracks/routine wear. Making something in MTP doubles or in some cases triples the price of the garment. Are you seriously suggesting we should waste money making something in MTP just to wear in Barracks? If you really feel you need something to wear in barracks then you can always try and pursuade your Chain of Command to wear Barrack Dress or Working Dress shirts in camp. Why would we want to waste money introducing another garment into the inventory to do the job being done by two garments already? Seriously.

UBACs - great piece of kit - so why do we need the lightweight jacket/shirt? Just MTP print the wickway material.
Because the UBACS is a Warm Weather garment. I agree it should be THE combat shirt but you will still need a Light Weight jacket for when the weather is cold for those who want it. The whole point with PCS is giving people flexibility and choice (strange concept) that allows them to wear those garments they need for the role they are doing depending on their own personal comfort levels. Some will be happy with a UBACS in the depths of winter; others will want a Lightweight jacket instead. But yes, the body will be changed to MTP in due course with the role out of the new UBACS which incorporates Tier 1 levels of protection to the neck areas.

Trousers - best I've had on issue. But...thigh pockets are just sewn on at an angle.US ones have the angled top and horizontal bottom.Our design means items roll forward and gather in the front (lower) corner. US ones also appear to have a more capacious bellows, baglike design and elasticated drawstring to make them better as a dump pocket.They also have ankle pockets that are ideal for CATS (unless yourleg is blown off!). Buttons are very hard to do up one handed, especially when cold, wet or in gloves. CATs in the arm pocket are bulky, uncomfortable and get caught when putting on, taking off body armour.
The US are ditching their elasticated drawstring because it doesn't work ands is universally detested (now that's what I call a snag hazard!). The dump pocket function doesn't work - they prefer separate pouches that can be removed. Remember also that anything on the legs adds to fatigue due to the extra mechanical advantage - rule of thumb: 1 lb on the foot is equivalent to 5 lbs carried on the shoulders. Lower leg pockets are crap - trialled and rejected: anything in them gets wet, they are uncomfortable after 2 minutes walking and the most likely part of you to get blown off is your leg! There is no upside to them unless you are an AFV crew in which case you should be wearing FR AFV crew coveralls. Yes buttons may be hard to do up but then they won't come undone by mistake - swings and roundabouts. CATS on the arm - these are essential; they may be a pain but it is often the first and easiest place to reach when you have been hit and need to find it. It is also the most likely to survive in place intact in the event of an IED (the higher from the blast the better). Sorry - this is one you just have to suck up!

OSPREY - US CBA has a quick release system that drops their body armour into pieces for easy removal when treating a casualty or for egress in tight spots. Also drop covers for front and rear abdomen that can be folded up and away seem a better option than the tier nappy for the majority of users. Helmet also has a CBA pad that protects the back of the neck and their helmet design seems to work better with sighting systems, balistic glasses and gives better visibility than even our latest. Fixed low collar is also probably better than the no-collar option that most brits go for.
The US quick release adds considerable bulk. It may be a worthwhile trade off and is being considered for the next generation VIRTUS system. As previously answered, the drop covers are useless against IEDs. They are designed to protect against splinters from an HE round going off some distance away, not against an IED going off underneath you. The US have ditched/are ditching the CBA pad. Their helmet may seem better but it has a much lower protection level against blunt trauma (ie hitting your head when you land after that IED has blown you up) and its ballistic protection is no better. Agreed about the collar - something similar is on its way.

Hope this helps.

uqfegd

pp

Новый LLM VR
http://www.army.mod.uk/news/26019.aspx

спек
http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/m ... io-Ray.pdf

Добрый день!
Подскажите, плз, по соответствию размеров формы в DPM (после 95 года) и MTP (PCS, не CS95). Есть ли какие-либо подводные камни насчет маломерности/большемерности или можно спокойно брать те же размеры, что указаны на вещах в DPM-вариантах?

мтп шедший в крое цс95 по размерам больше стандарта. Пцс - норм