Jump to content

Sgt Joch

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Sgt Joch

  1. reminds me of... https://youtu.be/TVb-Yb_NUy8
  2. it depends. Over the years, I have gone back and forth, from: 1. dismounting as soon as possible and walking my troops, but that takes a lot of time and may increase infantry casualties; to 2. dismounting as late as possible, sometimes on the very edge of the objective, but that can lead to disaster. I now use a more balanced approach, unloading some 500-1,000 meters away, keeping the AFVs close to provide fire support, keeping other troops mounted farther back ready to swoop in as required.
  3. ok I posted the missing "Mech Airbone Battalion" in QB as a bug report. However I don't know how long a fix will take. R2V is the priority right now.
  4. I think it has already been listed as a bug, but I will check.
  5. it is listed in "Heavy Infantry/ FO section" in the editor.
  6. yes, the Mech Airborne Battalion which has the BMP-3 seems to have been left out of QBs, it is in the editor though.
  7. As I recall, there have been posts about this over the years. Units do not automatically start firing when they spot an enemy, it depends on range, LOS, type of unit, how much ammo they have, etc. Don't forget that when a unit starts firing, it becomes a lot easier to spot by the enemy. I have been playing a lot of CMBN and CMSF2 lately and have not noticed anything wrong, just isolated instances of reluctance to fire.
  8. btw, how useful have the Javelins been in practice? When Obama was Pres, there was a lot of hand wringing about whether they should be supplied to Ukraine, but the sale by the Trump admin went largely unreported and there has been little reporting on their use.
  9. Let's not forget that since CMSF came out in mid-2007, BFC has released 7 base games, 6 modules (7 after R2V), 3 game upgrades, 2 battle packs, 1 vehicle pack as well as numerous free patches. That works out to something new roughly every 7-8 months. I don't think anyone can accuse them of slacking off
  10. I seem to dimly recall from posts pre-2007 that the basic engine is RT only. WEGO just pauses the RT engine every 60 seconds and adds the replay feature. personnaly I never play RT, WEGO only for me.
  11. for modern, yes, that is about right. NATO forces are well trained, so should normally be regular/veteran, unless you want to simulate national guard or reserve units. for Russian/Ukranian, well that opens up a can of worms…:) note you can also play around with leadership factors to fine tune experience level, for example a regular unit with a -1 modifier will act more like a green unit, while a regular with a +1 will act more like a veteran unit.
  12. well yes, what actually happened and it has been fairly well documented over the years is the U.S. supplied the Iraqi army/various rebel groups with expensive equipment. This being the Middle East, they abandoned the equipment upon contact with ISIS forces and/or defected to ISIS who "acquired" said equipment. This is hardly a new phenomenom. In the early 60s, the Vietcong was also equipped with various brand new U.S. weapons they had picked up from fleeing South Vietnamese forces...
  13. Generally, friendly AI units can fire through other friendly AI units with no damage. There was a post by Steve about this eons ago. In RL, there are complex rules about weapon deconfliction, but as I recall it would be too complex to code. Just to give one example, just the blast from the M1 Abrams main gun can injure personnel within 50-100 meters. Having said that, yes there are many instances, if you use area fire, indirect fire, if a shell/missile falls short or hits an obstacle where friendly units can be hit. Weapon deconfliction is an important concern, especially in CM modern where you can pile on a lot of firepower very quickly.
  14. If you want to see what a Battalion attack looks like, if you have RT, you could try the 1st mission of the Russian or German Campaign, both are battalion size.
  15. As I recall, the plan was to support Peiper's KG, but the plan was thrown off schedule from day one by U.S. forces, rough terrain, poor roads, traffic congestion, bad maps, etc. Peiper was also to blame since he rushed headlong without worrying about his rear. As I recall, he was also cut off by accident, U.S. forces had been ordered to set up defensive positions which happened to be in Peiper's rear not knowing that Peiper was already to the west of them. That is all part of the fog of war, currently reading up on the Russian winter offensive of jan. 45. As the armies raced for the Oder, large gaps of hundreds of kilometers opened up between the Russian Army Groups which greatly worried Stalin and STAVKA. Fortunately, the Germans were not in a position to exploit the situation.
  16. I don't know if anyone has mentioned "Tank Crew" from 1c. Still early access with limited gameplay, but may have potential. Problem with any simulation is you eventually see all the flaws and compromises from reality the Devs have made. Sometimes you have to take time away from a game to appreciate it. Overall, CM is still the best at what it does, i.e. WW2/modern company level armored/infantry tactical warfare.
  17. or worse, being sure you remember something and when you do check the actual reference, you realise you remembered it completely wrong. A problem as you get older. For example when I did the "Battle of Chaumont" scenarios, I had found a source listing the exact types, i.e. 75mm, 76,mm, Jumbo fielded by the U.S. forces, but now I cannot find the source or even remember what it was...
  18. not directly related, but good summary of the equipment used by U.S. armored divisions in late 44-early 45. https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/us-guns-german-armor-part-2/
  19. ok war movie, but very interesting because it features the Canadian Army in a semi-realistic scenario. I have actually seen it several times. One interesting bit is that the director/star Paul Gross actually went to Kandahar when the Canucks were still there and filmed a lot of footage, so the footage you see from 20 to 40 minutes in on Kandahar, helicopters, life on the base is all actual footage. The film itself was shot in Manitoba...amazing what you can do in a film. My fav scene is the funeral at the end..something about bagpipes...
  20. bit late to this discussion, but here is another interesting article on the key role suppressive fire plays in successful infantry combat: http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/CoTTP/Suppression McBreen 2001.pdf
  21. From what I have been able to find out, there was no clear pattern. Shermans were sent to depots and from there sent to combat units based on their needs. For example, when researching the battle of Chaumont scenario, I found out Patton's 4th armored division in December 44 was equipped with a mix of six month old tanks, tanks at the end of their service life and tanks in need of repairs, as well as new replacements. Of course, at this point, the 4th armored had been in pretty much continuous action since august. I have a list of the exact types present on dec. 23, 44, I will see if I can find it.
  22. sorry to hear about Nidan1, I played a few PBEM games with him. He was a fine gentleman.
  23. many factors go into a AFV's off road capability, i.e. ground pressure, suspension design, MMP rating, durability of components, etc. The game does not rely on any one factor. the Bar rating is only a rough indication of off-road capability. I had run some bogging tests of the T34-85 (3 bar) vs Tiger I (4 bar) some times back and in game performance of both was very similar:
  24. this can be useful as well: http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/007/7-8-1/index.html
  25. This has been discussed often, not only in RL, but in the forum. There were some good reasons why NATO switched from a 7.62 mm to a 5.56 mm round. Studies in WW2 showed that: 1-most firefights take place within 200 meters; 2-most infantry casualties are caused by mortars/artillery; 3-the principal role of small arms is to suppress enemy infantry to increase the effectiveness of point #2. The reason why 5.56 mm was adopted: 1. 5.56 mm weighs roughly 1/2 as much as 7.62 mm, so you can carry a lot more. That allows infantrymen to keep up a higher ROF to suppress enemy soldiers; 2. within 200 meters, 5.56 mm round can kill/incapacitate as well as 7.62 mm round; 3. with 5.56, you can use lighter, smaller weapons like the M4, which are easier to carry and more maneuverable in confined spaces, i.e. urban, room clearing. Certainly, you can find situations where the longer range/extra penetration of a heavier round might be more useful, but infantry is supposed to be working in cooperation with supporting arms, HMGs, AFVs, artillery, etc. to deal with those situations. Add to that the fact that everyone else, including the Russians (5.45 mm) and the Chinese (5.8 mm) have switched to a lighter round for the same reasons. So yes, these discussions come up very few years, but I don't see a switch away from 5.56 in NATO forces anytime soon.
  • Create New...