Sgt Joch

Yes, Aim-9 works, although I also read the Aim-120 has an easier job of tracking drones. This is from 2008, most likely a heat seeking AAM:

Well not sure what you are upset about. Haiduk’s attitude seems to be pretty much mainstream in Ukraine. The Ukrainian LGBT community has few of the rights enjoyed in North America, but that has been known for a long time so hardly news. For example, as I understand it, Trans sexuality is still classified as a psychiatric disorder in Ukraine. The West supports Ukraine because of Russian aggression which means we have a mutual enemy. The West does not choose allies based on shared values, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, etc.

Since the topic of countering drones came up, the U.S.Navy is confronting the problem head on dealing with Houthi drones and coming up quickly with stopgap solutions.

As I see it, UAVs reign as a potential Uber weapon will most likely be short lived. On a macro historical level, I suspect we are in 1915 when the Germans deployed a new Uber weapon and the Allies were panicking: Fokker Scourge - Wikipedia UAVs are just a new type of aerial weapon and as we have seen over the past 100 years, there has been a constant back and forth between offensive and defensive weapon systems. Most likely the same general types of defensive systems are being developed: 1. ground based AA defenses: radar/guns/missile/EW to detect and shoot down UAVs before they can reach their targets; 2. air based defenses: fighters/ hunter-killer drones to hunt UAVs in the air and shoot them down. Most likely within the next 5-10 years, we will have reached the same equilibrium we currently see in traditional aerial warfare.

Basically, because they are still situations where a gun is useful, whether stopping enemy/hostile vessels, supporting ground troops, etc. where a missile would not work or would be overkill. Most modern warships, like U.S. or RN destroyers also only typically have 1x 4.5 or 5 inch gun as its main gun armament.

Hi, not sure I understand your point. I did like your earlier post on Russian tactics. My overall point was that players should not feel obliged to play a certain way, but should use whatever plan/tactic works best in the situation. By 44-45, tactics used by all combatants were pretty similar and the characteristics pertinent to the Russians: greater tolerance to casualties, TO&E, artillery restrictions, etc. are already baked in by the game mechanics or can be programmed by the scenario designer.

sorry, I thought we were talking about Wespe. Yes, Grille works as well as some other infantry guns.

Just to add to this, as WW2 went on, it was common for combat leaders to use tactics that worked as opposed to following doctrine, which usually meant copying what the Germans were doing. So TC fought unbuttoned, fighter pilots followed Luftwaffe organization and tactics, infantry attacked in small groups with heavy AFV/artillery support, etc. Soviet HQ knew it and looked the other way, as long as it worked. This is confirmed by a lot of memoirs/histories.

article on the War Zone showing no damage at Russian airbase despite claim by UKR of 6 AC destroyed/8 damaged. https://www.twz.com/news-features/no-major-damage-seen-at-russian-air-base-after-drone-attack Just shows again that we should always be sceptical of claims until they are verified.

No, you are mistaken, as noted above, a unit like a Wespe is only available for indirect fire, i.e. artillery, if it is a off map artillery asset. It is easy to verify if you setup a test scenario. I also checked out the 3rd mission of the German CMFB campaign, I presume this is the "Kampfgruppe Peiper" campaign? but there are no Wespes in that one.

As pointed out above, assets like the Wespe or the Priest can only be used in a direct fire mode if they are an on-map asset. You can only use them in an indirect fire mode if they were purchased as an off map artillery asset. On the other issue, when you want to issue an order to a on-map mortar, you need to have a radio and C2 link from the spotter to the mortar. There is an exception as explained in the CM Engine Manual 4.0 (page 77):

Well that is one of those “it depends” thing. Ejecting from an aircraft is always dangerous and can cause injuries, but not necessarily in all cases. In wartime, a pilot will also be returned to duty quicker even if he has mild injuries.

Whoa, that 1st mission is tough! I have tried several different approaches, but I see Paper Tiger anticipated all of them…

https://www.politico.eu/article/energy-infrastructure-target-attack-ukraine-russia-war/ Another article that apparently the Biden Admin is asking Ukraine to stop targeting Russian Oil infrastructure. Since the whole focus now is on the election, the cynic in me thinks Biden is worried that if this causes Oil prices to go up, it will increase the chances Trump gets elected.

Bogging in CMx2 has always been on the light side. I worked on a scenario for the last CMFB module and set the ground conditions as “muddy” to force players to stay on the roads, but even when the AI moved AFVs cross country, there was very little bogging. To minimize chances of bogging, 1) check the off-road rating; 2) check the ground conditions and 3) watch your speed. The faster you go off-road, the greater the chances of bogging.