Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Battlefront.com

      Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips   12/27/2016

      Hi all! Now that Upgrade 4 is out and about in large quantities we have now discovered a few SNAFUs that happen out in the scary, real world that is home computing.  Fortunately the rate of problems is extremely small and so far most are easily worked around.  We've identified a few issues that have similar causes which we have clear instructions for work arounds here they are: 1.  CMRT Windows customers need to re-license their original key.  This is a result of improvements to the licensing system which CMBN, CMBS, and CMFB are already using.  To do this launch CMRT with the Upgrade and the first time enter your Engine 4 key.  Exit and then use the "Activate New Products" shortcut in your CMRT folder, then enter your Engine 3 license key.  That should do the trick. 2.  CMRT and CMBN MacOS customers have a similar situation as #2, however the "Activate New Products" is inside the Documents folder in their respective CM folders.  For CMBN you have to go through the process described above for each of your license keys.  There is no special order to follow. 3.  For CMBS and CMFB customers, you need to use the Activate New Products shortcut and enter your Upgrade 4 key.  If you launch the game and see a screen that says "LICENSE FAILURE: Base Game 4.0 is required." that is an indication you haven't yet gone through that procedure.  Provided you had a properly functioning copy before installing the Upgrade, that should be all you need to do.  If in the future you have to install from scratch on a new system you'll need to do the same procedure for both your original license key and your Upgrade 4.0 key. 4.  There's always a weird one and here it is.  A few Windows users are not getting "Activate New Products" shortcuts created during installation.  Apparently anti-virus software is preventing the installer from doing its job.  This might not be a problem right now, but it will prove to be an issue at some point in the future.  The solution is to create your own shortcut using the following steps: Disable your anti-virus software before you do anything. Go to your Desktop, right click on the Desktop itself, select NEW->SHORTCUT, use BROWSE to locate the CM EXE that you are trying to fix. The location is then written out. After it type in a single space and then paste this:


      Click NEXT and give your new Shortcut a name (doesn't matter what). Confirm that and you're done. Double click on the new Shortcut and you should be prompted to license whatever it is you need to license. At this time we have not identified any issues that have not been worked around.  Let's hope it stays that way Steve
    • Battlefront.com

      Forum Reorganization   10/12/2017

      We've reorganized our Combat Mission Forums to reflect the fact that most of you are now running Engine 4 and that means you're all using the same basic code.  Because of that, there's no good reason to have the discussion about Combat Mission spread out over 5 separate sets of Forums.  There is now one General Discussion area with Tech Support and Scenario/Mod Tips sub forums.  The Family specific Tech Support Forums have been moved to a new CM2 Archives area and frozen in place. You might also notice we dropped the "x" from distinguishing between the first generation of CM games and the second.  The "x" was reluctantly adopted back in 2005 or so because at the time we had the original three CM games on European store shelves entitled CM1, CM2, and CM3 (CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK).  We didn't want to cause confusion so we added the "x".  Time has moved on and we have to, so the "x" is now gone from our public vocabulary as it has been from our private vocabulary for quite a while already.  Side note, Charles *NEVER* used the "x" so now we're all speaking the same language as him.  Which is important since he is the one programming them


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About IMHO

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

394 profile views
  1. Stryker vs Bradley

    But nonetheless... Why, in your opinion, does not US Army mechanized infantry squad consist of an infantry squad, Bradley/Stryker, M109 howitzer, Abrams tank, dedicated Apache helicopter? It still falls within the guidelines of increasing firepower as much as possible...
  2. Stryker vs Bradley

    @IICptMillerII, !!!
  3. Stryker vs Bradley

    Theaters and application. BTR were designed decades ago back in Soviet time. The main objective back then was to run over the Western Europe as fast as possible. Before US reinforcements have a chance to land in Europe. God forbids but given the time frame it'd have been a fluid battlespace - one moves forward where opponent is weak the moment the weakness is discovered. So one trades better armor protection for mobility. Same with this discussion IMHO, - it's useless to discuss Stryker design outside the context of their battlefield application as a whole.
  4. Stryker vs Bradley

    Does the fact that neither Spike nor Javelin nor Stinger has remote targeting capability spell troubles for the idea?
  5. Russian army under equipped?

    @kraze, Carthago delenda est
  6. Russian army under equipped?

    Videos about RUS armored vehicles testing. Sand dunes testing for the first video and 4Km mountain testing for the second.
  7. The fun from the Russian side - NBC recon vehicle... And the name is Razrukha-1. Ruin-1 or Dilapidation-1
  8. A real picture from the same exhibition Arms and Security 2017 in Kiev... Ukrainian side is seriously underpowered?
  9. Nope, you'd need to severely disrupt the warhead to sufficiently degrade penetration abilities. The exact form of the 3 Km/s snowball at 100-200cm to target does not mean much for 30-60cm of (mere) RHA. PS Correction: by sufficiently I meant reducing the EFP core weight by 3-4-5 times, or increasing the penetrator's pressure spot accordingly.
  10. What do you mean? It's not a focussed jet so distance to the target is not as significant. I imagine the main trick is in keeping the differences of velocities between the center of the core and periphery within the limits. If you achieve this at the end of the core formation stage then the distance does not matter that much. It's just if the core travels really far enough then the initial miniature differences in speeds will start to manifest themselves. It's not the case of multiple explosive lenses so broadly speaking as long as both the liner and the explosive are uniform you can always play with the the cavity form and/or liner thickness to achieve the desired form of the core. All you need is enough distance for the penetrator to form. You don't need ns/ps initiation precision here. All are IMHO
  11. My guess it's true for a jet-forming HEAT but it's a kind of overstatement for an EFP. IMHO major downside you'll have is an aerodynamic instability. I'd guess the penetration ability for close distances will be just a fraction less than the loss of weight of the main penetrating core. And TOW's EFP liner has enough mass against thin top armour. I'd say counter-measure HE deforming effect is more dangerous for EFP liners than a small puncture if well off the center. Correct me if I misread EFP core formation process.
  12. TOW fly-over has an EFP warhead. HE energy transfer is not exactly relevant