Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/16/2014 in all areas

  1. 35 points

    Veins CMBS Effects

    Big gun muzzle flashes and explosions Small Arms Muzzle Flashes Flames and Hit decals At the moment if you want them PM me and I'll send you a dropbox link. To PM me click on my name and on the right you will see the button: 'Send me a message'. When the Repository is up to speed I'll add them there. Smoke and Tracers are also in there. V
  2. 19 points
    On the north side of the hill, the remnants of 3rd Platoon were still being ground down by the advancing Russian BMP-3s and infantry. The Platoon leader came staggering back through the forest and collapsed by a tree, falling next to the last two surviving dismounted infantrymen from his small command, both bleeding from multiple shrapnel wounds to their faces and upper torsos. “Sir, are you okay?” one asked. The Lieutenant’s haggard face told the story as he just stared at the man in obvious shock. In that instant, another burst of lethal 30mm cannon fire struck, directed by the thermal sights on an unseen enemy vehicle, and the officer fell forward on his face and was still. The two infantrymen cried out in panic, then both began crawling away from the source of the fire, one whimpering in fear and the other snarling in impotent rage. Note: BMP in background is destroyed Ukrainian 3d Platoon vehicle. In Krichek, KPT Kovtun knew that the Russians were up to something. The artillery continued to hammer down, but there was simply not enough fire or probing coming from the far side of the river, especially given the destruction of one of an enemy BMP over there by his ATGM team several minutes ago. Someone or something should have been hunting, searching, trying to pin down the missile team or flush out its comrades. He called the BMP2 section which had moved up and taken position along the row of houses on the west, facing the river. “Borsuk 11, have you seen anything? Any activity from the far side?” “Nothing Viktor, hang on, I’ll move up and take a quick look.” “Borsuk 11, this is Vovk, Hang on 11, don’t do anything stupid.” “Trust me Viktor – we are good on this.” An instant later a Kovtun heard the unmistakable hammering of outgoing 30mm fire, over the shriek of another incoming artillery shell. As his ears were still ringing from the tremendous detonation, he gradually heard the voice calling again on his radio. “Vovk, this is Borsuk 21… Vovk this is Borsuk 21…” with a heavy heart, already knowing Kovtun took a deep breath and replied. “Go ahead 21.” “11 is destroyed. We never saw what did it. His track is burning. No one got out.” “21 this is Vovk, do me a favor and don’t DIE in the next five minutes. Keep scanning but keep YOUR heads down. We need your track, your cannon, and your missiles! Stay under cover and respect the enemy’s abilities. Vovk out.” He passed the handset back to his RTO, making a deliberate effort not to throw it against the wall, and carefully peeling his white-clenched fingers from the black plastic. An instant later, he took it back and spoke again. “Brytva 22, this is Vovk. Move to checkpoint 2 and observe.” “This is Brytva 22, understood. Moving. I have permission to shoot?” Podpulkovnyk Tymoshenko stepped into the room. “You are committing the Tunguska?” “Brytva 22, destroy anything you see. Out” Kovtun gave his Air Defense Commander a hard look. “Yes Sir. It is needed. We have lost too many combat vehicles, and now 11 has stupidly gotten himself and his crew obliterated. I need a check on the south, and it must be fast, and lethal if anything is there. Brytva 21 on the other side has done quite well, although he said he saw nothing from his new position.” “Absolutely. Good, I approve. I trust you Viktor. Keep the fight going. Levchenko will get here with the Americans.” http://youtu.be/cKvN6JINyaw Outside, Major Harris drew the same conclusion from both the sounds of cooking off ammo from the recently destroyed BMP up the street, as well as the radio traffic which he and Beach were monitoring. He too drew out his handset: “Guiness, this is five, over.” As a small team, the SFAT had adopted informal call signs. SPC O’Brian was well known for his heritage, and his favorite beverage. “Five this is Guiness.” “Need you to get over to TRP 2 like we discussed. Seen anything? Figure you can make it?” “Roger. We can make it. The green boyos over here saw a couple dismounts earlier, but they laid into them with their AGS and we haven’t seen any movement since. I think our move is still masked. Same mission?” “Roger, just like we rehearsed, over.” “Guiness moving. We’ll be back in a bit with notches on our CLU. Out.” One hundred meters away, the SPC O’Brian picked up the Javelin launcher, tapped PVT Metcalf on the shoulder, and headed quickly down towards the river bridge, carefully skirting the anti-tank mines laid on either side of the road. At the Ukepor Power Plant, LT Lysenko grinned as he spoke into his mike. “Yes, that is in there. Fire for effect.” The infantry in the field had dropped from view, discouraged by a few bursts from his squad in the entry building, and the mortar spotting rounds had bracketed the position where he had last seen the Russian truck and troops. He hoped the mortar boys would fire fast so he could shift them closer into the field. He doubted his few men could hold off a platoon of determined Russians. Starshiy Kostenko knew he was a dead man. The 2nd Platoon private was on the ground, crawling past the body of one of his comrades, trying to follow his section leader back down the hill to the west, away from the murderous fire from inside the trees. It was like a horrible story to tell little children. From dark shadows beyond sight inside the trees, the forest had suddenly belched fire and flame, and all around him men had fallen. His own thighs and cheek burned with shrapnel, and he felt the warm sticky wetness of his own blood on his pant legs as he crawled. Suddenly, right behind him, he heard a crashing roaring clatter of sound. He turned his head and saw the Russian beast, a BMP-3, a mere stones throw behind him. He swung his rocket launcher around, and thought to himself how sad his mother would be…
  3. 18 points

    Preview of the first Battle Pack

    Battlepack 1: The Great Swan Northern France and Belgium September 1944 In just two months, between 6th June and mid August, the Allied armies in Normandy destroyed the cream of the 1944 German Army. Following this resounding defeat the Allies bounded across France in just a few days. It is during this period of stunning advance that Battlepack 1: The Great Swan is set, following the advance of the British 2nd Army from the Seine River, through Belgium, and all the way to the high water mark of the advance along the Meuse and lower Rhine. The first phase of the Great Swan occurred when the 43rd Wessex Division seized a crossing over the Seine at Vernon in an opposed assault crossing. The battle here lasted several days, and the first 24 hours in particular were considered to be very dangerous for the British troops. However the bridgehead was stabilised and then gradually expanded to make room for follow-on forces. Prelude, the first battle of the Campaign Amiens Tonight, is a semi-historical examination of the difficulties of pressing back the determined German resistance which was able to make good use of the thick forests along the Seine river banks. Shortly afterwards the British forces exploded out of the bridgehead and began racing across Northern France and into Belgium. From the first German resistance to the breakout was weak and disorganised - they were too busy fleeing back towards France to form a cohesive front. Engagements during this period tended to be small scale, and highly confusing. The Copse is a tiny scenario that takes a hypothetical look at one of these minor engagements. Overnight the advancing Allies generally rested, and prepared for the next day’s advance, while the Germans continued their relentless withdrawal. Celer et Audax and Nulli Secudus look at what happens when small British force disposed in hasty defence finds itself in the path of some withdrawing Germans in the middle of a rainy night or on a misty morning. During the advance to Amiens the 11th Armoured Division was ordered to advance through the night without rest, culminating in an astonishing advance of 48 miles in just 24 hours. Tallyho follows the vanguard of this drive as they approach the location of a temporary halt at dusk. The next day found 11th Armoured at Amiens, embroiled in bitter city fighting (The Somme), and then pushing out of the city into the open ground across the river (To the green fields beyond). This was not the end of the war, and the Division soon found itself heading east once more (And the beat goes on). Within days the lead elements of XXX Corps, made up as always by the armoured cars, found themselves in the region known as ‘the Crossroads of Europe’, a place where famous battles to decide the fate of nations have been fought since time immemorial (A crossroads near Brussels). Soon after reaching Antwerp and the Belgian boder the advance petered out, stopped more by the logistical strain of leaping forward 200 miles in a few days than by increasing German resistance. Field Marshal Montgomery famously tried to kick-start the stalled advance with Operation Market-Garden. Those battles have been dealt with elsewhere in Combat Mission. However, in the weeks prior to the launch of Market Garden there were about a dozen planned airborne operations, all opf which were cancelled when they were overtaken by events. But what if the advance had been halted in the vicinity of Brussels? One of the planned and cancelled airborne operations was LINNET II, which was to seize bridges over the Meuse west of Aachen, and open a route into Germany. A group of “what if?” fictional scenarios looks at how this never-fought battle might have played out. The flat ground between the Meuse River and Albert Canal would have provided excellent landing grounds (Drop Zone CHARLIE), while securing the river crossings was dependant on holding the high ground just east of the Meuse against counter attacks (LINNET II). As this operation was never launched, the exact details of Operation Linnet II are vague, and this vagueness has been exploited to look at the effect of differences in the detailed organisation of British and American ground and airborne forces when given the same ground and objectives, fighting against the same enemy. Following the failure of Market Garden the British made a concerted effort to close up to the Rhine along its lower reaches before the onset of winter. This phase of the campaign saw a partial reversion to positional warfare, and the re-emergence of deliberate attacks against strong defences (Swansong). Often these attacks were supported by the specialist armour of the 79th Armoured Division (Hobart’s Funnies). With the onset of bad weather at the end of September the frontlines became static, and the heady days of The Great Swan became an increasingly distant memory. In total Battlepack 1: The Great Swan contains over 25km2 of brand new, highly detailed handcrafted mapping.
  4. 18 points

    AKD sound mod (all inclusive)

    As promised, here is a BETA version of my sound mod combining all previous work into one universal mod for CMx2 titles. There may also be a few small updates since my last release, but don't expect big changes if you have previously used my mod in CMSF or the WWII titles. There are specific modules for modern sounds so you can pull them out for the WWII titles, although any problematic overlaps should be minimal. (edit: PM me for dropbox link.) Hope it helps with enjoyment of Combat Mission: Black Sea! I am very proud to have participated in development of this title. Black Sea is one of BFC's best yet.
  5. 16 points

    Soviet Doctrine in WW2 - 1944

    Aured - Did the Russians use the same fire and maneuver tactics with typical triangle tasking used by the US in WW II? No they did not. Did they understand the basic principles of fire and maneuver, sure. But the whole army was organized differently, tasked differently, placed less reliance on close coordination with artillery fires, wasn't based on small probes by limited infantry elements to discover the enemy and subject him to more of those fires, etc. Basically there are a whole host of army-specific optimizations in US tactics that just don't apply. The Russian force is divided into its mechanized arm and the rifle arm (called "combined arms" at the army level, but still distinct from mech). Each had its own specific mix of standard tactics. There are some common elements between them, but you should basically think of them as two distinct doctrines, each tailored to the force types and operational roles that type had. Conceptually, the mech arm is the arm of maneuver and decision and exploitation, while the rifle arm is the arm of holding ground, creating breakthroughs / assault, and general pressure. The mech arm is numerically only about a tenth of the force, but is far better armed and equipped, and controls more like 2/3rds of the armor. The Front is the first element of the force structure that does not respect this distinction and is entirely above it, and Fronts are not uniform in composition, but always contain forces of both types (just sometimes only limited amounts of the mech type). From the army level down to the brigade level, the distinction applies at one level or another. Below that level it still applies but cross attachments may blur somewhat, but normally at all lower levels one has clearly either the mech or the rifle force type and uses the tactics appropriate to that type. The army level is the principle control level for supporting elements and attachments - much higher than in other armies (e.g. for the Germans it was almost always the division level, with little above that level in the way of actual maneuver elements). The army commander is expected to "task" his pool of support arms formations to this or that division-scale formation within his command for a specific operation, depending on the role he has assigned to that formation. This can easily double the organic weapons of such formations, and in the combined arms armies, is the sole way the rifle divisions get armor allocated to them. What are we talking about here? Independent tank brigades and regiments, SU regiments, heavy mortar regiments, rocket brigades and battalions, antitank brigades and regiments, motorcycle recon regiments and battalions, extra pioneer battalions, heavy artillery formations from regiment up to divisions in size, etc. Basically, half of the guns and all of the armor is in the army commander's "kit bag" to dole out to his divisions depending on their role. A rifle division tasked to lead an attack may have a full tank brigade attached, plus a 120mm mortar formation to double its firepower at the point of the intended breakthrough. Another rifle division expected to defend on relatively open ground, suited to enemy tanks, may have an antitank artillery brigade attached, tripling its number of 76mm guns, and a pioneer battalion besides, tasked with mining all likely routes and creating anti tank ditches and other obstacles, etc. Every division is given enough of the supporting arms to just barely fulfill its minimal standard role, and everything needed to do it better is pooled up in the army commander's kit bag, and doled out by him to shape the battle. Similarly, the army commander will retain major control of artillery fires and fire plans. Those are not a matter of a 2nd Lt with a radio calling in his target of opportunity, but of a staff of half a dozen highly trained technicians drafting a coordinated plan for days, all submitted to and approved - or torn up - by the army commander. This highly centralized system was meant to maximize the impact of very scarce combined arms intelligence and tactical skill, which could not be expected of every green 2nd Lt. Within the rifle divisions, each level of the org chart has its own organic fire support, so that it does not need to rely on the highest muckety-muck and his determination that your sector is the critical one today. When he does decide that, he is going to intervene in your little corner of the world with a weight of fire like a falling house; when he doesn't, you are going to make do with your assigned peashooters. The divisional commander is assigning his much smaller divisional fires on the same principles, with the understanding that those smaller fires become not so small if the army commander lends him an extra 36 120mm mortars for this one. The regimental commander may get his share of the divisional fires or he may get nothing outside what his own organic firepower arms can supply - but he gets a few 76mm infantry guns and some 120mm mortars and a few 45mm ATGs so that he can make such assignments even if he gets no help. Frankly though the regiment adds little - it mostly assigns its battalions missions, and the regimental commander's main way of influencing the fight is the formation he assigns to those component battalions. Formation in the very simplest sense - he has 3 on line to cover a wide front, or he has 3 in column on the same frontage to provide weight behind an attack, or the 2-1 or 1-2 versions of either of those. It is not the case that he always uses 2-1 on all roles. The most common defense is 2-1 and the most common offensive formation is column, all 3 one behind the other on the same frontage. Notice, this isn't about packing the riflemen in - those will go off in waves at proper intervals front to back. But it puts all 27 of the regiment's 82mm mortars (9 per battalion) in support behind 1 or 2 kilometers of front line. The fire support principle at the battalion level is not implemented by having one of the component battalions support the others by fire from a stationary spot, with all arms. Instead it is a combined arms thing inside each battalion. They each have their 9 82mm mortars and their 9 Maxim heavy machineguns organized into platoons, and the "fire support plan" is based on those infantry heavy weapons. Battalion AT ability is minimal - 2 45mm ATGs and a flock of ATRs, barely enough to hold off enemy halftracks and hopeless against whole battalions of tanks. But that is because the higher muckety-mucks are expected to know where the enemy tanks are going to come and to have put all the army level ATG formations and their own supporting armor formations and the pioneers with their minefields and obstacles, in those spots. Down inside the battalion, the same formation choices arise for the component rifle companies as appeared at battalion, and the usual formations are again 2-1 on defense and all in column on the attack. And yes that means you sometimes get really deep columns of attack, with a division first stepping off with just a few lead companies with others behind them, and so on. This doesn't mean packed shoulder to shoulder formations, it means normal open intervals 9 times in a row, one behind another, only one at a time stepping off into enemy fire zones. These "depth tactics" were meant to *outlast* the enemy on the same frontage, in an attrition battle, *not* to "run him off his feet in one go", nor to outmaneuver him. The later parts could be sidestepped to a sector that was doing better and push through from there. The last to "pancake" to the front if the other had all failed, would not attack, but instead go over to the defensive on the original frontage and hold. One gets reports of huge loss totals and those "justifying" the attack attempt when this happens - the commander can show that he sent 8/9ths of his formation forward but they could not break through. It is then the fault of the muckety muck who didn't gauge the level of support he needed correctly or given him enough supporting fires etc. If on the other hand the local commander came back with losses of only his first company or two and a remark that "it doesn't look good, we should try something else", he will be invited to try being a private as that something else, etc. What is expected of the lower level commander in these tactics is that he "lay his ship alongside of the enemy", as Nelson put it before Trafalgar. In other words, close with the enemy and fight like hell, hurt him as much as your organic forces can manage to hurt him. Bravery, drive, ruthlessness - these are the watchwords, not cleverness or finesse or artistry. What is happening in the combined arms tactics within that rifle column attack? The leading infantry companies are presenting the enemy a fire discipline dilemma - how close to let the advancing Russian infantry get before revealing their own positions by cutting loose. The longer they take to do so, the close the Russian infantry gets before being driven to the ground. Enemy fire is fully expected to drive the leading infantry waves to the ground, or even to break them or destroy them outright - at first. But every revealed firing point in that cutting loose is then subjected to another round of prep fire by all of the organic and added fire support elements supporting the attack. The battalion 82mm mortars, any attached tanks, and the muckety-mucks special falling skies firepower, smashes up whatever showed itself crucifying the leading wave. Then the next wave goes in, just like the first, on the same frontage. No great finesse about it, but some of the defenders already dead in the meantime. Same dilemma for his survivors. When they decide to hold their fire to avoid giving the mortars and Russian artillery and such, juicy new things to shoot at, the advancing infantry wave gets in among them instead. And goes to work with grenade and tommy gun, flushing out every hole. The grenadier is the beater and the tommy gun is the shotgun, and Germans are the quail. Notice, the firepower of the infantry that matters in this is the short range stuff, because at longer range the killing is done by supporting artillery arms. The rifles of the most of the infantry supplement of course, but really the LMGs and rifles are primarily there as the defensive firepower of the rifle formation, at range. It is slow and it is bloody and it is inefficient - but it is relentless. The thing being maximized is fight and predictability - that the higher muckety mucks can count on an outcome on this part of the frontage proportional to what they put into it. Where they need to win, they put in enough and they do win - hang the cost. It isn't pure suicide up front - the infantry go to ground when fired at and they fire back,and their supporting fires try to save them, and the next wave storms forward to help and pick up the survivors and carry them forward (and carry the wounded back). In the meantime the men that went to ground are defending themselves as best they can and sniping what they can see; they are not expected to stand up again and go get killed. That is the next wave's job. The first did its part when it presented its breast to the enemy's bullets for that first advance. The whole rolls forward like a ratchet, the waves driven to ground holding tenaciously whatever they reached. That is the rifle, combined arms army, way of fighting. The mech way of fighting is quite different. There are some common elements but again it is better to think of it like a whole different army with its own techniques. Where the rifle arm emphasizes depth and relentlessly, the mech way emphasizes rapid decision and decisive maneuver, which is kept dead simple and formulaic, but just adaptive enough to be dangerous. First understand that the standard formation carrying out the mech way of fighting is the tank corps, which consists of 3 tank and 1 rifle brigade, plus minimal attachments of motorized guns, recon, and pioneers. The rifle brigade is 3 battalions and is normally trailing the tank brigades and holds what they take. Sometimes it doubles their infantry weight and sometimes it has to lead for a specific mission (force a river crossing, say, or a night infiltration attack that needs stealth - things only infantry can do), but in the normal offensive case it is just driving up behind something a tank brigade took, dismounting, and manning the position to let the tank brigade go on to its next mission. It has trucks to keep up, and the usual infantry heavy weapons of 82mm mortars and heavy MGs, but it uses them to defend ground taken. Notionally, the rifle brigade is the tank corps' "shield" and it maneuvers it separately as such. The business end of the tank corps is thus its tank brigades, which are its weapons. Each has a rifle battalion organic that is normally physically riding on the tanks themselves, and armed mostly with tommy guns. The armor component of each brigade is equivalent in size to a western tank battalion - 50-60 tanks at full TOE - despite the formation name. I will get to the larger scale tactics of the use of the tank brigades in just a second, but first the lowest level, tactical way the tanks with riders fight must be explained. It is a version of the fire discipline dilemma discussed earlier, but now with the critical difference that the tanks have huge firepower against enemy infantry and other dismounts, making any challenge to them by less than a full panzer battalion pretty suicidal. What the tanks can't do is force those enemy dismounts to open fire or show themselves. Nor can the tanks alone dig them out of their holes if they don't open fire. That is what the riders are there to do - kill the enemy in his holes under the overwatch of the massed tanks if and only if the enemy stays low and keeps quiet and tries to just hide from the tanks. That threat is meant to force the enemy to open fire. When they do, the riders drop off and take cover and don't need to do anything - the tanks murder the enemy. Riders pick their way forward carefully after that, and repeat as necessary if there are enemy left alive. This is all meant to be delivered very rapidly as an attack - drive right at them, take fire, stop and blast for 5 or 10 minutes tops, and move forward again, repeating only a few times before being right on or over the enemy. So that covers the small tactics of the mech arm on the attack. Up a bit, though, they are maneuvering, looking for enemy weak spots, especially the weak spots in his anti tank defenses. And that follows a standard formula of the echelon attack. Meaning, the standard formation is a kind of staggered column with the second element just right or left of the leading one, and the third off to the same side as far again. The individual tank brigade will use this approach with its component tank companies or pairs of companies, and the whole corps will use it again with its brigades. The first element of such an echelon attack heads for whatever looks like the weakest part of the enemy position - in antitank terms - and hits it as hard as it can, rapidly, no pausing for field recon. The next in is reacting to whatever that first one experiences, but expects to wrap around one flank of whatever holds up the prior element and hit hard, again, from a slightly changing direction. This combined hit, in rapid succession, is expected to destroy that blockage or shove it aside. The third element following is expected to hit air, a hole made by the previous, and push straight into the interior of the enemy position and keep going. If the others are checked, it is expected to drive clear around the enemy of the harder enemy position - it does not run onto the same enemy hit by the previous elements. If the enemy line is long enough and strong enough to be neither flanked nor broken through by this process, well tough then. Some other formation higher in the chain or two grids over is expected to have had better luck in the meantime. There are of course minor adaptations possible in this formula. If the lead element breaks clean through, the others shift slightly into its wake and just exploit - they don't hit any new portion of the enemy's line. If the first hit a position that is clearly strong as well as reasonably wide, the other two elements may pivot outward looking for an open flank instead of the second hitting right where the first did, just from a different angle. The leading element can pull up short and just screen the frontage if they encounter strong enemy armor. Then the second still tries to find an open flank, but the third might slide into reserve between and behind the first and second. The point of the whole approach is to have some adaptability and flexibility, to be designed around reinforcing success and hitting weaker flanks not just frontal slogging - all of which exploit the speed and maneuver power of the tanks within the enemy's defensive zone. But they are also dead simple, formulas that can be learned by rote and applied mechanically. They are fast because there is no waiting for recon pull to bring back info on where to hit. The substance that needs to be grasped by the leader of a 2nd or 3rd element is very limited, and either he can see it himself or the previous element manages to convey it to him, or gets it up to the commander of all three and he issues the appropriate order downward. They are all mechanically applying the same doctrine and thinking on the same page, even if out of contact at times or having different amounts of information. The whole idea is get the power of maneuver adaptation without the delays or the confusion that can set in when you try to ask 3 or more bullheaded linemen to solve advanced calculus problems. There is just one "play" - "you hit him head on and stand him up, then I'll hit him low and shove him aside, and Joe can run through the hole". There are some additional principles on defense, the rifle formation forces specially, where they use 2 up 1 back and all around zones and rely on stealth and field fortifications for their protection, while their heavy weapons reach out far enough to cover the ground between each "blob", and their LMGs and rifles reach out far enough to protect each blob frontally from enemy infantry. That plus deeper artillery fires provides a "soft defense" that is expected to strip enemy infantry from any tanks, or to stop infantry only attacks on its own. Or, at least, to make it expensive to trade through each blob in layer after layer, in the same "laying his ship alongside of the enemy", exchange-attrition sense. Then a heavier AT "network" has to cover the same frontage but starting a bit farther back, overlapped with the second and later infantry "blobs". The heavy AT network is based on cross fire by 45mm and 76mm ATGs, plus obstacles (watrer, ditches, mines, etc) to channel enemy tanks to the locations where those are dense. Any available armor stays off the line in reserve and slides in front of enemy penetration attempts, hitting strength not weakness in this case, just seeking to seal off penetrations and neutralize any "differential" in odds or armor concentration along the frontage. On defense, the mech arm operates on its own principles only at tank corps and higher scale, and does so by counterpunching with its offensive tactics, already described above. That's it, in a nutshell. I hope this helps.
  6. 14 points

    The Night Before CM-mas

    Twas the night before CM-mas and all through the bunker not a 'truppen was stirring they were all down and hunkered The frags were all hung by the rifles with care In hopes that Santa Steve soon would be there The 'truppen a snoring and dreaming away of the hookers they'd met, on leave last May When out in the minefield there arose such a clatter, I sprang from my bunk, my skivvies all tattered. Away to the gun sites I flew like a plane, pulled back the bolt and steadied my aim. When from mod weary eyes I spied from afar, Some northern Maine dude with a brain in a jar, Santa Steve! I shouted with excitement and glee but in response, just some bitching about TO&E On Stragglers, on Sicherungs, Luftwaffe and Herr on Jagers and Gebirs, and others more rare He droned on and on as the brain kept a coding and I knew deep inside this was no normal foreboding For once in a while a reference to Syria and with that little gem I was sent to hysteria For amidst all that heavy WWII talking Toward Shock Force 2 I knew he was walking Patiently on the desert I'd waited and soon it'd be real and my lust would be sated Back to the sand! Nato, Uncons and pals but with 4.0 flare and friggin' hit decals! My head filled with war and the toys that it brings I was hoping I'd see it before G**D*** spring! Then brain in arm, he turned toward the west to continue ever onward the Combat Mission quest Teeth clenched and jaw set against the snowy wind he trudge into the night, a phantom again And as he passed by the bunker and out of our zone I chewed on the annual Christmas bone. Merry Christmas, fellas! Mord.
  7. 14 points

    Michael Emrys are you there?

    Hi fellas. On the phone for several hours. neighbors, police, churches, apartment manager, etc. The bad news is he was reported to have been injured in some type of motor vehicle accident back around March the officer said. Then he went to a convalescent hospital but they are unable to tell me anything other than "not listed as a resident at this time"... Good news: property manager finally answered my 2nd call and she says he is doing well and she'll give him my number to call me.
  8. 13 points

    [Released] Night Vision Mode

    Here's a modification of the movie mode shader that gives it a night vision effect for those night scenarios. It's designed to be used in conjunction with the artificial brightness mode (Alt+B), so to use it all you have to do is hit Alt+B and Alt+M. Here's a link to download it right now, and I'll also upload it to the repository. DOWNLOAD A couple screenshots: Thanks to SLIM for the idea and BarbaricCo for making it known it was possible to mod the shader.
  9. 13 points

    The patch?

    The whole communiction from the side of BF is a joke. People can defend it as much as they like, but their PR is not only very bad, it is almost non-existent. I don't buy nonsense like 'they must concentrate on their work', 'new information will only bring discussion and questions' and 'you can tell them how to do things once you have your own company'. Reading this forum IS like being stuck in a time-loop and the lack of information IS causing speculation. Utter arrogance. Technically not allowed to say that....
  10. 13 points

    just to say: MERCI

    Hello it will be a year now that I discovered CMBN and this forum and is time to intervene to say thank you I'm not the only one to do it but the repetition is good Since my childhood I have a dream, a desire, to see with my eyes this battle that has rocked my childhood, imagining to travel the battlefield like a drone. I was born in Falaise in 1970 and my family suffered the battle : 4 killed, the house bombed, the exodus on the road, the strafing of the bomber fighters, the artillery, the fighting but also after the battle, the destroyed houses, the burning vehicles and corpses littering the battlefield were all family meal conversations. Here in Normandie this was an important trauma. It always impressed and interested me, in a word: fascinated. I constantly asked for clarification and to question civilians or soldiers who had experienced these events. All the film reports on the subject, I watched them. I think I have seen ¾ images known from the battle. I never stopped walking the battlefield, collecting vestiges and remaining some hours to imagine the events. I used every means to immerse myself in this battle and the battles of the second world war in general. Movies, books and even games Squad leader then Close Combat that I practiced a long time. But although this battle has become my daily life because I have made it my job (I am a guide of museum and even considered as an expert of fighting led by the Poles during the Battle of Falaise pocket), the time passing my imagination has declined. and little by little the image of these fights in my mind was becoming more and more abstract. I ended up consoling myself by telling myself that if I go to paradise there I will can achieve this wish i was not counting on CMBN What a shock and even if it remains a game, my imagination work and as in my childhood events come to life in my head. After a year of practice my enthusiasm is not blunted my dream is somehow realized. So for that: thanks for this formidable game thanks to the moder who improves even more are aspect, thank you to persons who animates this forum thanks to the battle designers (for the anecdote I live on a map of the game !) I'm begining to smoke again and to say some nastiness on my neighbors, paradise has lost its appeal !!!
  11. 12 points

    Thanks Steve :)

    Hello names Hector. i live in Puerto Rico and you may know what hurricane Maria did to our beautiful island. We have no power only 3 hours a day, and as a CM fan had really missed playing. I had a little problem with the game installation since they were downloaded (i had the cds also) and tried to contact battlefront but was hard with no internet so I managed to get on for a bit and found a phone number and called Steve whom I really dont know who he is but he answered. I want to say Thanks for the conversation we had. He offered to help and eventhough I got everything working offline after, it was refreshing to hear he was available to help. I really appreciate his gesture and will continue to support Battlefront knowing that behind this company are great and caring people. Again Thanks Steve . Hector
  12. 12 points
    Michael Emrys


    Mark Twain once wrote his paper to inform them: "The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated." To those who have expressed concern for my health and well-being, my thanks and I will reply to you individually as soon as I can get my e-mail program to send as well as receive. For all of you who may be interested, I will write a more detailed report as soon as I can and post it in the GF, which is I think a more appropriate forum for such discussions. But not to keep you in too much suspense, I will say here that on the 26th. of March I was struck by a pickup truck which resulted in 11 broken ribs and a broken clavicle (no, that is not a baroque musical instrument). Since then I have spent five days in hospital and about two and a half months in a nursing facility and only arrived home today. I am in pretty good shape due to some good rehab work by some dedicated people. More later. Michael
  13. 11 points

    C2 & Information Sharing

    Some interesting topics have been started about how information moves through the C2 chain both vertically (up & down the chain of command) and horizontally (directly from one team to another team). As a result I did some experimenting with C2 & information sharing. Below are the results and several chronological screen shots from the experiment. If anyone can offer a correction or additional information please do. Additional useful information on the topic: Game manual 3.01 page 62 Command & Control. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/113787-can-somebody-answer-some-questions-on-information-sharing/ The distance information can be shared vertically (chain of command). Voice C2: Up to six action spots, approximately 48 meters. Close Visual (eyeball) C2: Up to 12 action spots, approximately 96 meters. Distant Visual C2: As far as the unit’s line of sight. (In the experiment I had units sharing information vertically with Distant Visual at 40 action spots, approximately 480 meters before I stopped.) Radio C2: Entire map. (In the WWII titles If a unit is moving on foot they will drop out of radio C2 during the movement) The distance information can be shared horizontally (directly between teams). Up to four action spots, approximately 32 meters. (Sometimes a team had to move to within 3 action spots) Can information be shared horizontally between teams from different battalions? Yes Can information be shared between to different HQs that do not have a common higher HQ? Vertically: No (With no common higher HQ there is no bridge for the information to pass over) Horizontally: Yes I used two different US battalions on a custom made map for the experiment. The 4th US Tank Battalion on the west (left) side of the map and the 1st US Infantry Battalion on the east (right) side. A high ridgeline divided the two battalions. At the beginning of the experiment no units of the 4th Battalion were in C2 with units of the 1st Battalion. An immobilized German Marder II was used as the OpFor unit to be spotted and reported. The scouts move out to locate the German Marder II. At 03:58:43 the scouts obtain a sound contact for the Marder II but they are out of C2. 1st Platoon is selected but shows no icon for the Marder II. Additional to follow.
  14. 11 points
    I invite you to download the final version of HQS HQS 2.2 is a huge modification for Combat Mission Black Sea / Shock Force / Afghanistan - adds or replaces almost all the sounds in the game. That's more than 2,400 sounds and more than 1GB of data, a lot of improvements and modifications really improve immersion in the game. Changelog 2.2 380 additional sounds - Improved infantry Ukrainian sounds - More sounds for Americans - More sounds for the Russian infantry - New sounds for MTB / BTR / LAV / amphibious / damaged engines - More ricochets / penetration / impacts / explosions / zips - Improved ambient sounds - More sounds for jet - A new sound for fire - New sounds PKP / M240 COAX / AIR ROCKET / 25MM Bushmaster / M2 / MORTAR 80-120MM and of course lots of other fixes and improvements http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods/5471/details of course, as usual, I will be grateful for any comments and suggestions;)
  15. 11 points

    Today is my lucky day :D

    Forget it. Judging by what i have read from you in other threads, i think that your intent is most likely to look up the hardware i bought and then tell me that i either bought it for a bad price or that it' s not good or whatever. And even if you wouldnt find anything, you would probably just make something up. I wont support you trying to piss me off. And even if the next thing you tell me is that i misjudge you, that' s your problem, i neither trust you nor do i like you, bad luck.
  16. 11 points
    Hello there, I'm a new user here. Before I get on with the topic, here's a short introduction: I'm a long time gamer, and I started the Combat Mission series with the first initial games, mainly the Beyond Overlord, which I loved. After all these years, I came to learn that there are far more Combat Mission games, and that they have also gone for more modern settings (Cold War Afghanistan and Modern Syria) for few of their latest games. I have tried the demo of the two games, and I have fallen in love again. Then I heard of the latest upcoming iteration - the Black Sea - and here I am. I wished to get it done before the release, but school got in the way. Given the setting, as well as some rumors flying wildly about a possible future Module, I have decided to make the list you can see below. Please, by no means take it as me begging/pleading/ordering the Battlefront crew to include Poland in the game/future module. It's merely meant as a very general guide/refence, and to perhaps bring some interest of fellow tacticians to this country's armed forces, which usually are rather unheard of on the global scene. The list may not be accurate, it's a rough prediction of what might be around for Poland in 2017. It's based on plans (which have been outlined up to 2020), as well as news from the military industry around the globe, as the situation is dynamically changing day to day. Any mistakes are not an ill will, merely a mistake or a document being interpreted the wrong way. Please keep that in mind. Also it's not really meant as a proper reference, and please don't use it as such. Hence, I won't link any of my sources (majority which are in Polish anyway) as this list was made rather hastily. Should you require proper references (*wink wink, nudge nudge*), I will happily oblige as soon as I can (I have finals atm). Also, I cannot buy the Black Sea for the time being, but I hope to do so in the coming months. Now onto the goodies: Weapons and vehicles that are not (yet or otherwise) in service of Polish Armed forces, have names written in cursive. Infantry Weapons: Assault Rifles: Kbs wz. 1996 Beryl - 5,56 mm NATO Kbk wz. 1996 Mini-Beryl - 5,56 mm NATO (beside frontline service, also used by vehicle crews) Kbk AKM - 7.62x39 mm WP Kbk AKMS - 7.62x39 mm WP MSBS - 5,56 mm NATO and 7,62 mm NATO variants, should start entering service 2015/2016 LMG: RPK - in use in Airborne Force (limited) PK - various variants UKM-2000 - various variants, UKM-2000M to enter service in 2015, used by infantry as well as vehicle mounts Rheinmetall MG 3 - used on former Bundeswehr vehicles (Leopard 2A4/2A5 and respective ARV's) LMG variant of MSBS - 7,62 mm NATO, possibly to enter service in 2015 (image not available) HMG: WKM-B - Polish variant of the NSV MG, adapted to use .50 BMG NATO NSW - Polish variant of the NSV MG, still using the original 12,7 mm WP ammunition. In the process of being replaced by WKM-B Both used on variety of vehicles or standalone Sniper/Marksman rifles: SWD/SWD-M - Polish designation for SVD Dragunow. SWD-M is a Polish upgrade. 7.62x54 mmR WP Sako TRG (TRG-21 and TRG-22) - 7,62mm NATO Sniper Rifle Bor - Polish made, 7,62 mm NATO Sniper Rifle Tor - Polish made .50 BMG Sniper Rifle Granade Launchers: Underslung: wz. 74 Pallad/GPBO-40 - 40mm Granade launcher for Kbs wz. 1996 Beryl Standalone: Mk. 19 - on vehicles and tripod wz. 83 Pallad-D/GSBO-40 - single shot 40mm launchers RGP-40 - six shot revolver mag launcher. On order, should enter service in 2015 GA-40 - may enter service before 2017 AT Weapons Unguided: Carl Gustav M3 - (Airborne and Spec Ops forces only) AT4 - (Airborne and Spec Ops forces only) RPG-7 - in service, unknown which warheads are in service in the Polish Armed forces RPG-76 Komar (in storage, requested and used by forces in Afghanistan for smaller targets upon which RPG-7 (or other weapons) would be a waste) Guided: Spike-LR - Stationary launchers as well as launchers based upon HMMWV and ROSOMAK vehicles. 4km range, Fire & Forget, Fire Observe & Update, Lock-On After Launch - what more do you need ? 9K115 Metys - limited use by airborne forces MANPAD: GROM - reportedly a "copy" and vast improvement upon the Soviet designed 9K38 Igla. Several new versions made since then. Also used on variety of vehicles PIORUN - improved version of the GROM, should start entering service in 2015/2016 (launcher is reportedly the same, it's the missile that will be vastly improved) VEHICLES: MBT: T-72M1 - no major/significant changes since the Warsaw Pact times, it's an export variant of the T-72A produced in Poland under license (chances are if you are seeing one of those anywhere near a frontline, then you are within a stone's throw from the Warsaw), reportedly Polish made T-72M1 were of higher quality and make than average among the Warsaw Pact countries (mentioned in passing in a book or two). PT-91 Twardy variants: PT-91 - Polish Modernization of the T-72M1 PT-91M PT-91MA1 - Same as above, majority of modifications is internal, such as better Radios and better electronics. Leopard 2A4 - nothing much to say, not much different since the days of them watching over the Fulda Gap. They however have access to better ammo since those days. Leopard 2A5 - Unchanged since they rolled off the assembly line. They do have access to more modern ammunition though. Leopard 2PL - Poland has expressed interest to modernize our Leopard 2 fleet to 2A7+ like standard. First would go the 2A4's, then 2A5's. There are several proposals, but it's a bit of a mess right now (to say the least), hence it's doubtful it will be ready or deployed in a significant capacity within Polish Armed Forces before 2017. APC/IFV: BWP-1 - BMP-1D variant "Good" old BMP-1D. Not much to be said. (We used to have BMP-2 and BMP-2D but our idiot paper pushers sold them). A program to develop new tracked vehicle to replace BWP-1 has been initiated, but extremely unlikely to produce anything of substance before 2017. KTO ROSOMAK variants: ROSOMAK is a family of variants developed upon AMV PATRIA family. Rosomak - first initial variant, features Oto Melara Hitfist-30P turret, armed with 30mm autocannon ATK Mk 44 along with a coax 7,62mm UKM-2000C MG. Also equipped with Obra laser warning receiver connected to smoke granade launchers and an amphibious vehicle capable of swim. Rosomak-M1 – Modification for the needs of Chad and Afghanistan deployments. Changes include: additionf of Pilar "Fire direction detection" system, new and improved comm. systems, additional radio, two additional cameras on hull sides, connected to screen in infantry compartment. Water propellers have been removed, and the Vehicle was up-armored with Israeli Rafael Armor Package, bringing the vehicle to all around STANAG IV protection levels. Rosomak-M1M – further development of the version for Afghanistan Deployment. Changes from previous variant includes addition of American Qinetiq RPGNet, cabling and sockets to mount Duke IED countermeasure system and of Blue Force Tracking system (those systems are not integral part of this variant and were on loan from the US military). Infantry compartment went from 8 to 6 soldiers. This version has been up-armored by default by the original manufacturer, giving it the same STANAG IV protection levels as M1. Rosomak-M3 – version armored anologically to Rosomak M1. It's turret is armored up to STANAG III standard. The turret can carry WKM-B 12,7mm HMG or 7,62mm UKM-2000C MG or Mk. 19 40mm grenade launcher. Those vehicles usually carry either two of the above, one on the turret, second within the hull near the turret, allowing them to be swapped "on the go". Rosomak-S - unoficially called "Spajkowóz" (Spikewagon) – infantry carrier variant of the base version (ergo still capable of swim), equipped to carry 2 Spike LR launchers, a load of spare missiles, along their respective weapon teams. Otherwise unarmed. KTO Rosomak - Hitfist-30P turret with Spike LR variant and KTO Rosomak - Unmanned ZSSW-30 turret with Spike LR variant The former is no different than the Base Rosomak (aside from integration of the Spike ATGM with the turret) and has already been developed, built and tested, however the latter has been designated as next step in the Rosomak development hence the former most likely won't enter service. However (at the time of the writing) there only exists a first iteration of the ZSSW-30 turret, which is being tested, but is not integrated with the Spike ATGM yet, afaik only a mockup of the double launcher can be seen on the right side of the turret. As both vehicles, for all intents and purpouses, will serve the same role and function within the game, either could be added. KWWO Wilk - Kołowy Wóz Wsparcia Ogniowego (Wheeled fire support vehicle) (105/120mm) Prototypes exist but appears extremely unlikely at this point to enter service. Recon: BWR-1D and BWR-1S (BRM-1K and BPzV "Svatava" respectively) Basically a BMP-1 without ATGM, having somewhat better NVG's and optionally carrying a recon squad. BRDM-2M-97 "Żbik-B" Polish modification/modernization of the BRDM-2 vehicle. New turret, Obra laser warning receiver and smoke grenade launcher, new NVG's. Armed with WKM-B and a UKM-2000 as coax. Rosomak-R1 and Rosomak-R2 – Recon variants based upon the base Rosomak (hence still amphibious capable). Armed analogically to normal Rosomak, with 30mm AC and 7,62mm coax. No infantry carrying capacity. Crew compartment instead has been remodeled to house operators of additional equipment. Upon extendable 4 meter mast a FLIR System video camera, Thermal camera and laser rangefinder/target designation system were mounted, allowing for recon at the distance of up to 20 km. R1 variant has been additionally equipped with Turkish Aselsan ACAR Ground Surveillance Radar. Reportedly allowing detection of an infantry man from 12 km away, and vehicle group from 40 km away. Radar has been mounted on a mast behind the turret. Both has been equipped with additional camera with directional microphone. Tank Destroyers: BRDM-2 KONKURS Tumak-5 (M1045A2 HMMWV) with Spike-LR ATGM ROSOMAK with unmanned Spike Launcher Turret - there exists an existing presentation model with combined GROM launcher on top. The military has stated desire for such/similiar variant to replace aging BRDM-2 based Tank destroyers, however there haven't been much word on it since. Car transports: Tumak-2 (M1043A2 HMMWV) Tumak-3 (M1025A2 HMMWV) both come with Shielded/unshielded manned turret with UKM-2000, WKM-B or NSW, or mk. 19/GA-40 Tumak-4 (M1097A2 HMMWV), transports up to 11 people depending on the exact setup, unarmed Skorpion-3 - light multi purpouse vehicle, 7,62 MG on the roof turret. 1+4 crew Star 266M - Working horse of the Polish army. Unarmed truck. Up-armored driver cabin variant may also enter service "soon" (see Hibernyt-3 below) AA Assets: ZSU-23-4W1 Szyłka (ZSU-23-4V1) - no known changes since the Warsaw Pact times (possibly just some minor changes to make it compatible with modern AA Command and Control systems of the Polish Army). In the process of being upgraded to ZSU-23-4MP Biała standard. ZSU-23-4MP Biała - Polish upgrade, removal of the radar with mounting of completely passive opto-electronic detection and fire control systems, new ammo with slightly longer range (approx 3,5 km), and 4 GROM missiles for additional firepower (GROMs might be changed for PIORUN's in the future as they become available), all weather capability as well as Thermals and new AP rounds. Żubr-P - carrier of the POPRAD System using the GROM missiles (may use PIORUN as those become available). POPRAD is basically a passive detection suite, four GROM launchers and some spare missiles. 9K35M Strzała-10M - About unchanged since the Warsaw Pact days (as far as I can tell) Osa-AKM-P1 "Żądło" - Polish upgraded OSA-AKM, not sure if it fits CM scale however. Hibernyt-3 - uparmored Star 266M truck carrying ZUR-23-2KG system. ZUR-23-2KG upgrades since the good old ZU-23-2 includes: CP-1 night-and-day sight with laser rangefinder, electromechanic gun turn system and twin launcher for "Grom" missiles. The truck carries additional ammo and spare missiles. Off Map Support: AHS Krab - (aka THE MOST embarrassing project of the modern Polish Military industry) a division (at least) planned before 2017 AHS Kryl (possible to enter limited service before 2017) Both are 155mm NATO compatible Self Propelled Howitzers Armatohaubica wz. 1977 DANA-T - 152mm Self Propelled Howitzer 2S1T Goździk - Polish upgrade of venerable 2S1 Gvozdika SMK-120 RAK - 120 mm self propelled mortar system based upon ROSOMAK chassis - on order 80 vehicles to enter service in 2015 2B11 mortar - 120mm Mortar M-98 Rodon mortar - 98mm mortar LM-60 mortar - 60mm mortar Air Support Helo: Mi-24W (Polish designation for the Mi-24V)- Reportedly the Kokon ATGM are long past expiration date and they have only unguided ordinance now at it's disposal (!! REPORTEDLY !!). So either they won't have any or we assume we borrowed some Kokons from the Ukrainian stocks. Planes: F-16 Block 52+ I have made this informative info-graphic about what kind of stuff it can carry. Not sure which of those fit scale of CM:BS, but that's everything we have for them or have planned for them at the time of writing. Su-22M4 - as much as it would be even a bigger of a suicide than flying A-10 into a modern ADN, a number of Polish Su-22M4 can carry a pair of Kh-29T's - TV guided Anti Tank missiles. Beside that, it can carry to up to 8 dumb bombs - FAB-500 max or ZK-300 Polish made cluster bomb (anti personnel). MiG-29 (9.12A) - it can drop some dumb bombs, either FABs or ZK-300's UAV: Boeing ScanEagle Aeronautics Defense Orbiter WB Electronics FlyEye I imagine that would be all. If there are any questions or anything else that might fit the CM scale, please feel free to ask questions and I shall do answer them best to my abilities/knowledge. Apologies if I posted this in a wrong place. Thank you for reading ! EDIT: Formatting was gone for some reason. Should be all good now.
  17. 10 points

    The patch?

    Thanks for stating it that way. I will say, as a beta-tester, coming to grips with this behavior has been difficult. The NDA prevents a lot of what I'd like say (and is a nice way to dodge ) but realize that the HE fleeing behavior was not seen as a deal-breaker before v4.0 was released...or it would not have been released. Think about the myriad of situations your pixeltroops have been in. Think about how often they do the right thing...and you don't even notice it. Think about when they do something wrong...and the situation which it took to get that behavior. Without giving too much (anything?) away, I follow two basic courses of investigation: there are areas I dig into to find stuff; and there are times when I get a whiff of something not quite right. In the first case, I start with a set of presumed behaviors and try to stress them to their outlying limits. In the other case, I happen to notice something in passing...and then the Eye of Sauron focuses upon it. There are fewer and fewer of each. And the gameplay effect of most are very minor. I can field multiple battalions and have total mayhem reign for four hours...and notice only a few odd cases of behavior. Most (all?) can be explained by men panicking under fire or other reasonable explanations. Think about the magnitude of that achievement: several hundreds of "men" acting realistically over multiple square kilometers whilst killing and being killed and trying to achieve a terrain objective. The HE behavior slipped through. Now, what if the fix is worse? Maybe men will stick in their locations, but then tanks reverse towards threats. But only if unbuttoned and the threat is known but out of LOS. And only on odd numbered turns. Occam's Razor: if the fix were simple, wouldn't you have it already?
  18. 10 points

    Veins Russian/Ukrainian infantry

    A few people have asked for them so in the time honoured tradition: if you want them bung me a PM. Note: they are a V1, I haven't really gone to town on them. There may be a V2. There may not. Russkies Ukes Ukes Digital
  19. 10 points

    German attack doctrine in CM

    In the thread on Russian doctrine in CM, we went through how the Russian attack, especially their Rifle formation branch. That method applies the principles of attrition warfare, depth, firepower, relentlessness, last man standing stuff. German doctrine on infantry attacks was entirely different. SlowLarry asked about it in the previous thread, and rather than bury an answer there, I am moving that part of the discussion to its own thread, here. Elements of German attack doctrine apply to panzer forces as well, but the focus here will be on infantry division attacks. Which may include StuG support or similar, generally divisional artillery FOs, battalion and company mortars - and squad infantry up at the pointy end. Obviously there are some requirements of overall odds, suitable terrain, fire support, and enemy strength that are needed for infantry formations to attack successfully. But the German doctrine uses everything differently, because the focus of their attack doctrine is positioning and articulation of forces - maneuver warfare stuff - not primarily force ratios and losses and attrition thinking. In the German doctrine, the chief element of the offense is surprise. The idea is always to hit where and when one isn't expected, to catch the enemy napping, unprepared, with the wrong dispositions to deal with your chosen point and method of attack. To achieve that, the focus is on information on the one hand, and adaptation on the other. Adaptation includes mobility, heightening your own safe, feasible shifts of forces and weights, and restricting those of the defender. Those can then all be used to arrange many on few fights at chosen points, which once won, further disarticulate the enemy force. His elements are supposed to become less able to help each other, to find their proper combined arms targets, or to have the conditions of terrain and range and such they need to fight effectively. Some local advantages may be "cashed in" for dead enemy to move the overall forces in your favor, but most will be focused instead on continually reducing the enemy's options and moves. In the ideal case, this ends with a surrounded and trapped enemy unable to move an inch without taking murderous fire. Fire lanes into open ground wrapped around an enemy position are like ropes binding his legs. Once all sides are covered around a given enemy this way, his "movement allowance" has been reduced to zero. His ability to pick what firefights he will engage in has therefore disappeared. You can decide whether to engage him, and he can't make an equivalent decision. By fire and movement principles, that is as good as a kill. An artillery barrage can then be laid on that immobilized enemy to destroy him at leisure. In short, the idea is to surprise the defender, hogtie him, and fight the remainder of the battle with him in that condition. Needless to say, this places considerable greater demands on the attacking commander than the comparative straightforward methods described in the Russian doctrine thread, and it can readily be screwed up, and will fail if it is screwed up. The German approach in the matter was to take risks and generate chances for lopsided wins, and expect enough of those to pay off, to defeat the overall enemy more efficiently than the attrition method. The Germans don't ever want to fight fair - meaning no even engagements of like arm vs like arm without a big edge in their favor from one factor or another. If there isn't yet such an edge, maneuver for one before engaging too closely. That difference in approach is easily stated, but what does it mean in practice for infantry attack methods? Three ways, really, each with some variations and subject to mixing with the others, at different distance, time, and force scales. The three ways are (1) broad front, recon pull, aiming at envelopment (envelopment for short), (2) the coup de main, which is effectively trench raid tactics on a grander scale, and (3) infiltration tactics proper, which stresses getting well into the enemy defended zone, by slow and stealthy processes, before the main engagement occurs. Broad front recon pull means that a skirmish line of infantry sweeps forward like a single wave, and finds *all* the enemy positions. Not just one or two of them to chew on, but locating the entire enemy front line. Weak outposts are driven in by this wave to find the real enemy positions, the ones with enough strength to stop a single thin infantry wave. Besides finding the enemy, this leading wave is expected to pin him in place, to "find and fix". That works by not pressing hard anywhere, sitting down in the cover nearest the enemy but not physically held by him. Then reaching out by fire - from the LMGs the squad infantry brings forward, first of all - to cut up the enemy side of the field with fire lanes, around each body of cover on his side of the field. The goal is to freeze in place as much of the enemy force as possible, by making lateral movement far too risky, several hundreds yards deep into his own positions. Then a reserve and assault group, which has been kept back out of that leading wave, picks targets found and isolated by it. The goal is to find gaps in the defenses already, and to widen promising fissures by destroying specific bits of the defense, to get deeper into it. The reserve maneuvers in the German "backfield", sheltered by the leading wave and the knowledge it has provided as to which locations are clear of the enemy, which routes already traversed drew no enemy fire, and the like. It sets up opposite its chosen targets. It brings with it heavier weapons - StuGs, FOs, 81mm mortars - and infantry weight in numbers. These supplement the fire of the elements of the scouting wave nearest the chosen target, and "escalate" the pressure on those chosen enemies. Meanwhile the rest of the battlefield is being ignored. The scouting wave is just waiting in the ground they took and preventing easy lateral movement by the enemy, to help the position chosen for the point of attack. The overloaded point is thus destroyed. Now a new wave spreads from that point, into the deeper parts of the enemy defense. The scouts nearest follow in the wake of the now leading reserve, and form a new reserve behind the entry point. The new spreading wave finds the new enemy positions, and the process is repeated. The goal is to roll up the enemy defenses or break through them, always fighting only the new few that matter for the moves the attack is making next. But the attacker lets enemy weakness dictate where those points of attack should be. Always, hitting where they ain't, and trying to get into them before help can come from either side, or from the enemy rear and reserves. Speed matters in this, because the enemy learns where the main point of attack is, as it gets going, and he will try to adapt. The attack wants to adapt too, faster, with better information. The scouting wave is also a counter-recon screen blinding the enemy as to one's own deployments. If a reserve is arriving at A, the point of main effort wants to already be over at B by the time they get to the front. Think of a running back making the defensive linebackers miss - it requires anticipation of enemy moves, faster reaction to new information. It helps if ranged weapons can also disrupt enemy movements - StuGs get missions like interdicting all movement across a certain road, pairs of HMGs put down fire lanes with a similar intent, an FO may plaster the only cover point that allows movement from the east side of the map to the west side. In other words, the role of fire is as much or more to restrict enemy movements as it is to hurt him directly. Every area of open ground on the enemy side of the field is analyzed for its usefulness on cutting up enemy moves, and locations that can see each are determined, heavy weapons teams maneuvered to such positions long before the attacker knows he will need them. Enemy moves are systematically taken off the board by firepower threats into such open ground areas. Frequently the scouting wave may start with a bias or direction, too. E.g. as a wing attack on the left 2/3rds of the field, with the intent of turning the enemy's left flank. Such routes or plans are made with an eye to being the least expected and likely to be the least defended against, *not* on the principle of the most promising terrain or routes for the attacker. Otherwise put, since the first principle of the attack is surprise, "most promising" normally equals "least expected" - even if it means crossing dangerous ground - as long as that can be done quickly. The infiltration method can be thought of as a more extreme version of this on a wider scale and with less of an emphasis on fixing the enemy, and more on using stealth to find his gaps. Night actions, fighting in fog, use of smoke sometimes, are used along with this approach. The idea is to sneak into the enemy position. As much as possible, as deep as possible into his whole defense scheme, before first trigger pull. And after first trigger pull, the triggers are used as a distraction - look, look, over here, there are some Germans over here - while the haymaker is winding up from the other hand. The same principle of removing enemy moves by a tactically defensive stance and fire lanes to cut up enemy positions, executed by advanced wedges, is used here too, just like the scouting wave did in the previous method, once it went to ground. There is a critical mental shift involved in this understanding of the value of positions pushed forward. They do not need to assault straight onto enemy positions. They do not need the weight to do so. They don't need the weight to shoot down enemies in good cover, nor do they need to press home to root him out of his holes. All they need to do is prevent him from leaving his present positions, without being cut up by ranged fire into the open ground bits he has to cross, to leave that cover and get to some other body of it. Anything isolated in this sense, by having all its useful safe moves taken away, is "hogtied". No reason to run up against them or fight that at all. They are already in a prison cell, and artillery can execute them later if need be. There is also a new principle in true infiltration methods - to just bypass, wherever possible, rather than fight. Any position that can be ignored should be ignored. If there is a route that blocks LOS to that position, maybe someone watches it or at least prevents easy moves out of it, but for the rest, they might as well be on the far side of the moon. Consider anything that can't see you already defeated by poor positioning. Bypass and press deeper, all the way to the back of the defense. German infiltration attackers do not expect to keep the enemy in front of them. They expect to have enemies on all sides of them. Then blind them and pin them in place, and move between them. You can see how limited visibility conditions are critical to the full application of this method. I passed over the coup de main. It is about surprise in the purest sense. Here, instead of waiting for recon pull to tell you everything about the defense, you need to guess it. Rapid, more limited scouting may be used, and there are certainly leading half squads going first - the usual drill. But you just guess where the enemy is and isn't going to be; you pick a key point you think you can get to that will put some portion of those enemies at a disadvantage, and then you drive like hell for that key point. Faster than the enemy can react. Others are trying to pin him where he is - heavy weapons from back at the start line, e.g., or a 105mm artillery barrage that discourages anyone from getting up and walking around from over on the right side of the field. But the basic idea is just "get there first with the most", where you picked the "there". Win at that point by weight of numbers and the right combined arms brought to that fight for the enemy faced, and do so before the enemy can adapt his positions to that new info about what you are doing. The follow up can be another such adaptation, or just to exploit what was taken in more of the "fixed them, then pick the next spot to overload" method described in the first approach. Coup de main differs from the broad front recon in that it is less driven by what the scouts first discover, more by your command push decision. But you are trying to base that on a guess as to where the enemy will be weak and won't be expecting you. If your guess is wrong, you back off and try something else, don't turn it in to an attrition attack on enemy strength. The coup de main effort can be materially aided by having armor behind it, or as a second best, good approach terrain over a wide area (e.g. large continuous woods or city). It expects to win at the chosen point by getting a many on few fight there and winning that fight before the enemy can even the local odds. For that to work, it can't be the case that all the enemy weapons bear on the chosen point. You need to pick both the concentration objective and a route, such that only a modest portion of the enemy force has any chance to contest your approach, at first. Then you just want to go down that route so fast that "at first" equals "until the fight for that objective is over", because they only differ by 2 minutes (5 max, 2-3 a lot better). Now, in all of this, you still have to pay attention to combined arms, meaning having 81mm mortars around and HQs to spot for them if there is going to be an enemy gun or HMG position, and a StuG or a panzerschreck up close if there is going to be an enemy tank, and 105mm or 150mm artillery fire if there is going to be a big block of woods full of Russian tommy gunners. Or you can put HMGs on fire lanes on 3 sides of those woods and just go around them, never into or by them. Remember, if they can't see your main force, and they can't safely move to change that, they are already dead (hogtied, same thing). They just don't know it yet. I hope that helps explain the very different way German infantry attacks.
  20. 10 points

    [WIP] Juju's TweakedUI v4 (final)

    I've finally fully upgraded my CM:BN game and I, naturally, just had to update my UI one final time. Simply 'updating' got out of hand rather quickly and we're now looking at a complete overhaul to bring the entire UI up to 'Red Thunder UI' standards. There are still several behind-the-scene elements to tackle, but here's a preview of what's coming (click the pic for the original, much less blurry, image). By the way, I could still use one more tester! Who's game?
  21. 10 points
    P.S. Please do keep voting up the posts. If I cannot defeat Bil on the battlefield, perhaps I can amass more 'forum reputation points' than him! Ha!
  22. 9 points
    Sigh. My contention is this: We throw a wild party for Battlefront, and all of us are in attendance. We all get positively rip-roaring drunk, do stupid things. At the height of the party I'm demonstrating armor maneuver by going full sprint through the office swinging my arm wildly to indicate turret direction while screaming "Death before dismount." I certainly 100% do damage. However it's hard to separate the next morning what specifically was damaged by my "Thunder Run" vs what other parties did too. Sure there's my tanker boot treads all over the shattered remains of someone's desk...but I "ran" it over after someone else already kicked it down screaming "THIS IS SPACE LOBSTER COUNTRY!" I contributed my share to the massive pile of bottles yes....but I wasn't even the one who drank the most. Within the context of both fights, US artillery and aviation certainly did destroy things. This is a known variable. However pointing to the rubble of Mosul and chittering how it was all those damned Americans and their bombs, or Raqqah and placing all the blame on 18 heavily abused 155 MM howitzers is a bit disingenuous. ISIS vigorously practices scorched earth type tactics. Our "Friendly" and friendly forces all practice firepower warfare vs manuever (or they're going to shoot the objective with every weapon they have for an hour, THEN move to a closer firing position to repeat the same tactic, and then maybe five hours later, short on ammo move onto the objective). Both of those cities felt the full weight of a 3rd World conventional military attack, a suicidal bomb happy defender, and then some Western precision fires. Between those three, those fires certainly did their part in damaging those cities. But again the contention that basically, without those fires the attacks would have left either of those cities pretty much intact is very much a falsehood. Aleppo for instance serves as a really good example of what happens without the US precision fires, and with the opposition not being generally ISIS tier individuals. So. Again not denying there's collateral damage, but it's just idiotic to lay the preponderance of the damage at the feet of 18 howitzers while ignoring the effects of thousands of ground combatants, tanks, conventional artillery from both parties, IEDs in all guises all duking it out in close quarters.
  23. 9 points

    Armoured Infantry

    Shows what you know... Mord.
  24. 9 points

    Irratic Framerate Issue

    I ran the same scenarios as Hister using my system with the following specs: AMD FX 8320 3.5GHz 8-core (4 modules totaling 8 integer, 4 floating point, up to 4.0GHz turbo mode) 8GB of DDR3 1600 (CAS 9) MSI GeForce GTX 660 Ti - 388.00 driver Asrock 880GM-LE FX motherboard (AMD 880G chipset) Samsung 840 EVO 250GB SSD Windows 7 Home 64-bit SP1 (latest patches) Running at a resolution of 1920 x 1200. Using the default settings in CMBN 4.0 (Balanced/Balanced, Vsync OFF and ON, AA OFF) and in the Nvidia Control Panel I typically got about 6 FPS (measured with the latest version of FRAPS) in "Op. Linnet II a USabn UKgrnd" on the German entry side of the map (all the way to the edge) and scrolling right or left looking at the Americans in Richelle. In "The Copse" scenario it measured around 28 FPS behind the allied armored units at the start (scrolled around the map a bit). Messing around with Vsync (both on and off), anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering, Process Lasso (affinity, etc.), power saving settings in Windows control panel, etc. didn't seem to have a significant performance effect on the low FPS of 'Op. Linnet II...'. I overclocked the FX 8320 to 4.0GHz (simply using the multipliers in the BIOS and turning off several power saving features there too, such as APM, AMD Turbo Core Technology, CPU Thermal Throttle, etc.). With 'Op. Linnet II...' the FPS increased to only 7 FPS. Turning off the icons (Alt-I) did bump up the FPS by 1 additional frame (the option reduced the number of objects to be drawn in this view) to 8 FPS. There are some Hotfixes from Microsoft that supposedly address some issues with the Bulldozer/Piledriver architecture and Windows 7 involving CPU scheduling and power policies (KB2645594 and KB246060) that do NOT come through Windows Update (you have to request them from Microsoft). I have NOT applied these patches to see if they would make a difference since they CANNOT have their changes removed (supposedly), even if you uninstall them. A number of users on various forums have stated that the changes made little difference to their particular game's performance. I decided to compare this to an Intel system that was somewhat similar: Intel Core i5 4690K 3.5GHz 4-core (possibly running at 3.7 to 3.9GHz in turbo mode) 16GB of DDR3-2133 (CAS 9) eVGA GeForce GTX 670 - 388.00 driver Asrock Z97 Killer motherboard (Z97 chipset) Crucial MX100 512GB SSD Windows 7 Home 64-bit SP1 (latest patches) Running at a resolution of 1920 x 1200. Again using the same settings used on the FX system with CMBN and the Nvidia Control Panel I got 10 FPS in 'Op. Linnet II...' while scrolling on the far side looking at the American forces in the town. In 'The Copse' scenario the FPS went to 40 FPS behind the allied vehicles at their start positions. The biggest difference between the GTX 660 Ti and the GeForce GTX 670 is the greater memory bandwidth of the 670 since it has a 256-bit bus compared to the 660 Ti's 192-bit memory bus. So POSSIBLY the greater GPU memory bandwidth in conjunction with the Intel i5's higher IPC (Instructions Per Cycle) efficiency and the increased system memory bandwidth (faster system RAM) resulted in the higher frame rate on the Intel system, but only by so much. I ran a trace of the OpenGL calls used by CMBN while running 'Op. Linnet II a USabn UKgrnd' on the FX system. This recorded all of the OpenGL calls being used in each frame. The trace SEVERELY slowed down the system during the capture (a lot of data to be written to the trace file). Examining the trace file suggests that CMBN is SEVERLY CPU BOUND in certain graphical views. This is especially true with views of a large amount of units and terrain like that in 'Op. Linnet II...'. What appears to be happening is that some views in large scenarios of CM involve A LOT of CPU time in issuing instructions to the video card/'frame buffer'. The CPU is spending so much time handling part of the graphics workload (which IS normal) and sending instructions to the video card on what to draw that the video card does not have a full (new) frame of data to post to the frame buffer at a rate of 60 or 30 FPS (Vsync). At 30 FPS each frame would have to be generated between the CPU and the video card within 33.3ms. Instead this is taking around 100ms on the Intel system and about 142ms on the FX system (resulting in the 10 and 7 FPS respectively). Some frames in the trace file had hundreds of thousands of instructions, some reaching near 700,000 instructions (each one is not necessarily communicated between the CPU and video card, only a fraction of them are), whereas sections where the FPS was higher might only have less than 3000 instructions being executed. The low frame rate is a direct consequence of how busy the CPU is and this can be seen with both Intel and AMD CPUs. So the accusation comes up, is the CM graphics engine un-optimized ? To a certain extent, it is. There are limitations on what can be done in the environment and with the OpenGL 2.x calls that are available. CM could be optimized a bit further than it is currently, but this involves a HUGE amount of time experimenting and testing. Working against this optimization effort is CM's 'free' camera movement, the huge variety, number and size of maps available and the large variety and number of units.These features make it hard to come up with optimizations that work consistently without causing other problems. Such efforts at optimization are manpower and time that Battlefront simply does not have as Steve has stated earlier. Charles could be working on this for years in attempt to get better frame rates. While this would be a 'worthy goal', it is unrealistic from a business standpoint - there is no guarantee with the amount of time spent on optimizing would result in a significantly better performing graphics engine. Other, larger developers typically have TEAMS of people working on such optimizations (which, importantly, does allow them to accomplish certain optimization tasks within certain time frames too). When CMSF was started sometime in 2004 OpenGL 2.0 was the latest specification available (with the 2.1 specification coming out before CMSF was released). Utilizing newer versions of OpenGL to potentially optimize CM's graphics engine still involves a lot of work since the newer calls available don't necessarily involve built-in optimizations over the 2.0 calls. In fact a number of OpenGL calls have been deprecated in OpenGL 3.x and later and this could result in wholesale redesigning of the graphics engine. On top of this is the issue that newer versions of OpenGL may not be supported by a number of current user's video cards (and laptops and whole Mac models on the Apple side). As for the difference between the GTX 550 Ti and the GTX 660 Ti that Hister is experiencing, I'm not sure what may be going on. The GTX 550 Ti is based on the 'Fermi' architecture, while the GTX 660 Ti utilizes the 'Kepler' architecture. Kepler was optimized for the way games operate compared to the Fermi architecture which had slightly better performance in the 'compute' domain (using the GPU for physics calculations or other floating point, parallelized tasks). The GTX 660 Ti should have been a significant boost in video performance over the GTX 550 Ti, though this performance difference may not be too visible in CM due to the CPU bound nature of some views. It's possible that older drivers may have treated the Fermi architecture differently or simply that older drivers may have operated differently (there are trade-offs that drivers may make in image quality for performance - and sometimes this is 'baked into' the driver and isn't touched by the usual user-accessible controls). I have a GTX 570 I could potentially test, but I would probably need to know more details about the older setup to possibly reproduce the situation and see the differences first-hand.
  25. 9 points
    Wiggum15 - are you at all capable of rationale and mature debate? From your previous posts it does appear as if you are going out your way to appear both irrational and immature. TBH your attitude and the way you interact with other posters comes across as hostile and combative. You wonder why other posters then react in the way you do?