AlphaZulu90

There are lots of buildings without door in West Yard area.  If there is no door how are soldiers supposed to get in and out of a building?

Is this a bug?
CMSF2 v2.0

In my opinion a building without a door (even through the wall to next building) makes no sense.
It's like a bridge in the middle of a field that does not cross any obstacle like a river.
Why build a bridge there when a vehicle could drive forward just as well without the bridge?
So having buildings without doors, but that still have units inside is like having a tank without gun but still can fire rounds and destroy other tanks.
Maybe a scenario design bug or something. 

Wicky,
 
Interesting, if they cut back, wonder if they are going to put the resources into  AVF robotic support type tanks and supplies instead.  
As far as Crimea goes, I am baffled as to why everyone in Europe seems to be on Flouride or some sort of relaxant or they are being extorted, bribed, threatened into submission.  They had to know that Russia would want all of that land they lost, back.  So, why did they not see this ahead of time?  They need to realize  all the Mafias are ridding us off and are not to be trusted.  They are going to take Kiev next, I feel.  Why, because that is where I saw the Mafia at the CERN laboratory, I do have that picture if anyone is interested.  They intend to have control of this.  It is more that just a piece of technology.  It is their ticket to ride out of here or bring in reinforcements.  They think, if, they move a CERN laboratory closer to Putin, they will have mafia protection.  The last CERN failed (Swiss Zionist Mafia).  This new CERN is very expensive and many governments are being bullied,  to pay for it.   Russian planes have been flying over England recently, bulling them.  Russian has spies in MI-6,  London, forgot one of their names, go to Abel Danger.  This Russian mafia and other mafias in U.S., Australia, and more are blackmailing European (Recently Angela Merkel's, Germans, Poland, and other  world leaders by crashing their airplanes, school children even, using the Boeing uninterrupted Auto-Pilot +  Air Tranquilizer  (ATI)  to tranquilize pilots, crew, and passengers to terrorize countries into pouring money into the CERN Laboratory in Ukraine and other land grabs.   A list of flights where they used the BUAP + ATI  to force planes down for revenge to governments who failed to comply.  Adam Air 574, Kenya Airway 507, Speedbird 38, Turkish 1951, Colgan 3407, Air France 447, Air Afrikiyah 771, Sukhoi Superjet, MH370, MH17, QZ8501, and now the one downed in French Alps.  There is a reason why the co-pilot had steady breathing, he was out cold.  They own the mainstream news, so you will be reading from their mafia owned script writers.
 
So, if we want to make life easier, now, and later, we need to take Putin seriously, one tank in Mariupol is not enough to  stop their advancing toward Kiev.  Check my sources, meanwhile,  ensure pilots have warning systems in the cockpit when the air is foul, extra oxygen to prevent the plane from being droned.  For more on this see Abeldanger.net, on Livestream as Abel danger.   Around 1995, one of the airlines in Europe filed a suit for 800 million because their 747's airplane technologists for Lafthunsa, Germanwings is an affiliate, (recent France crash ,pay back) for filing this suit where technicians, found extra stuff in a electric equipment  compartment (E&E).   They filed, to get Boeing to pay for having to remove the components on all of the jets they purchased from Boeing.  To protect Boeing and us, these need to be removed immediately.  New York Bronx, Base 1 Technologies Clinton aides activated the patented devices BUAP + ATI to kill revenge Yvonne Selke, a Pentagon spy in the satellite mapping branch of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency.  This is how they  revenge after being fired from key positions or to kill a whistleblower or to kill  Yvonne Salik.  We provided Ukraine with satellite imagery because Putin had control of Ukraines therefore always had the upper hand.  The mafia is trying to intimidate the Pentagon so we will stop sharing intelligence with Ukraine.
 
Let us put an end to mafia controlled banking, markets, and manufacturers exploiting humanity.  If they can blackmail our Pentagon, world governments, we have no representation.  Find out more, we have to wake up,  Airbus, FAA, JAA all know about this, so why aren't they doing anything about it, they are complicit.  Soon,  people who don't know about it,  will.   Covering up by killing off any whistleblowers exposing this, is a very dark world.  Not the world I want to hand over to my children. 
http://new.livestream.com/abeldanger

Unfortunately we have a form of governing in place that today is inherently corrupt. Our representatives do not put their full energy into serving all of their constituents, but rather seek to please wealthy donors, lobbyists and special interest groups which can afford to put big bucks into the politicians coffers.
There is no rush to reform any of these situations because the pols do not want to cut off the major sources of their funding.
 
Therefore our so-called Lawmakers spend their energy and influence to please small sections of the population, while the issues raised by the majority of Americans are ignored, or worse pay lip service. The framers recognized how this situation could lead to a paralyzed government and they chose to compromise on the seperation of powers. Madison was concerned with how legislators would be seduced by the power and influence of small groups with big purses. He called it "the violence of Factions"
 
Could this kind of governing lead to a situation where the populace is so fed up with the way things are done or not done, that they would turn their backs while a military takeover took place. You would want to think that it is unlikely.

Tank operations in urban areas for dumbys:
 
1. Use your infantry to lead. They can better move through hard cover, and are good sensors (or their eyeballs and situational awareness is pretty good)
 
2. Clear on line, everytime.  When you move your infantry forward, try to keep infantry broadly in a line across the front.  This achieves two things:
  a. IRL, it's clearance of fires.  If I know the next squad over is literally 90 degrees to my right, I'm not trying to guess if the shadowy figures in the windows to my 1 o'clock are friendly or not.
  b. It keeps enemy AT assets from slipping through.  If you're advancing unevenly, or bypassing buildings, there's a chance the last remaining conscript with -2 leadership with an RPG-7 is going to smoke your Abrams with a rear shot.  By clearing on-line you ensure that behind your troops there's nothing but ruins and bodies
 
3. Hold your armor  back, and identify armor-friendly avenues of approach.  This prevents the enemy from trying to mass AT assets because he knows broadly where your tanks are, but you should know how to get your tanks to the front as fast as possible.  This pairs well with the clearing on-line because it ensures that all these avenues of approach are clear of hostiles, so fast moving your tank is a no-threat exercise.
   a. Alternately, do not hold it back, but keep it just behind your infantry as an overwatch piece.  Infantry clears to the next intersection, then tank moves up to said intersection and holds there until the infantry gets to the next intersection up.  Repeat until in Moscow.
 
4.  When your infantry identifies something worth tanking to pieces, then bring the tank forward to start using direct fires.  Often the best technique is use the infantry to suppress the target while using a "target" command on the enemy position (assuming it's a building) to bring it down on the OPFOR's head.  Then keep the tank in overwatch while infantry moves in.
 
 
Some things just to remember:
 
1. No one likes it when a building falls on them.  Don't be afraid to flatten a few buildings you can see tracer fire from, or even knock a building down to give your tank a new LOS (this is historically pretty common, in Aachen US engineers would blow up buildings, or otherwise knock down walls to open new firing angles for tanks)
2. There's no infantry carried AT systems in CMBS that reliably can kill most tanks from the front.  Javelin is the only one that could but it is not so hot from close ranges.  As long as you clear, and secure the flanks your tank will be king of murder mountain.
3. All of these tactics also apply well to IFVs, just be mindful the IFV is still likely to respond poorly to the AT4/RPG type threats from the frontal arc.  Conversely autocannon fire is murderously effective against infantry.  
4. Tanks are great spotters for artillery given their robust coms, and unlike an infantry type spotter, he's not going to get suppressed by small arms fire from the target.  Suppressing with the tank's MG's, then doing a full battery precision strike on the enemy who's pinned down in the target building is often very effective (I'm not sure I really need all six shells hitting, but I find it tends to ensure building destruction, and rarely leaves survivors).  
 
 
The American military has remained successfully fairly apolitical.  The only military coup type situation I could see is a civilian government that is either in flagrant violation of the Constitution (King Barack* the 1st kind of flagrant), or if called to do really bad mojo (King Barack* decrees the state of West Virginia will be decimated for its insolence!).  The military has remained rather loyal regardless of who's in charge (with the Bush and Obama years offering a good contrast between super-supportive, and not supportive of the military) and outside of some crazy stuff, will likely remain so. 
 
*This is no way an attempt at sniping at the current president.  If this was 2002 I'd be writing "King George W the 1st" or 1998, "King Bill." I don't really like the current president, but I recognize he's the legitimate leader of the country, and concede he's at least trying to do what's best for America in a legal and moral manner, I just differ with him on a lot of issues just what the "best" is.  Which gets further into the mindset, if he ordered me to go to Hati in my few remaining weeks on active duty, I would do so without question because it's my job to obey the orders of the commander and chief (within the confines of the Constitution) and he has the authority to do so.  I just don't think there's that feeling in the military of being a part of the government with a say in how the country is run, vs being a tool of the government to carry out policy set by the civilian administration within a legal framework.  

T-14 is already in Alabino btw, but all spotters attempting to take a picture of it have been shot. 

And know what it does with some level of credibility. I'm sure whatever armor it has according to the Russians can defeat smaller nuclear explosions and resist Captain America's sheild but combat mission thus far has well modeled what we know about vehicles vs propoganda claims.

gunnersman,
 
I think those two are suitable for a quiet Estonian night, whereas Bradleys could be heard in the Kremlin. Only slightly more acoustically stealthy than a nuclear strike. Speaking of Bradleys, here's a niftly little toy.
 

 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

BFC,

Regarding the Forum Rules, I feel trapped.

In seeking to comply with the Moon Dictum, it's a) hard to communicate effectively with my wargaming brethren, because I have to be ever careful to break links, so as not to clash with the "no commercial links," but this gets me numerous overt complaints on the Forums and even PEMs. Try as I might, I've so far found no viable solution.

Many have pointed out "BFC doesn't care about those kinds of (informational) links" and link without a second thought, but having gotten a Moon Rocket AKA Infraction, over just such an exercise, I don't feel safe in chancing another one. Moon takes an absolutist position on the matter, which is why I call it a dictum, but I'd like to request that the link policy be reviewed. Further, may I request that, once such a determination is made, it be notified to the Forumites and thereafter be consistently enforced? As things stand, some are linking with impunity, while others, who've stepped on a Rule mine as I have, are hobbling about and warily watching for tripwires and those little prongs! Now to that new vexed matter.

Recently, I was quite shocked to discover that, for unknown reasons, Search now requires an annoying Capcha type thing be done. It's hard to read (putting it mildly, and the replacement ones are often just as bad), and I pity the color blind. Why oh why do we have to deal with this IMO useless time wasting, er, feature? Were bots having their way with Search and consuming enormous bandwidth or what? I don't get it.

Thanks for your attention to these matters.

Regards,

John Kettler

A new study looks at the to-be-expected negative impacts of online gaming on marriages, as well as the unexpected benefits for some couples. As for you lot dating or canoodling under the same roof, no study for you!

http://healthland.time. (usual) /2012/02/16/is-online-gaming-messing-up-your-marriage/

Regards,

John Kettler

Bil,

Looks like I need to read more closely, or at least not in such wee hours! So the M16 nearly ate a platoon of your Landser? Daresay had it done so, that would've taken some starch out of your textbook advance. And it was a textbook advance. What's the German equivalent of the Sandhurst "pink" solution, I wonder?

Regards,

John Kettler

panzersaurkrautwerfer,
 
I was the Soviet Threat Analyst for the OA (Operations Analysis) department of Hughes MSG (Missile Systems Group), Canoga Park, California from February 14, 1978-September 12, 1984.  We did weapon effectiveness, countermeasures, force on force modeling, established performance requirements, developed lateral and new applications of existing weapons for an array of tactical missiles and related weapons, many of which were antitank and other categories of strike. I was also involved in a strategic program. Did I design the warheads? No. Was I intimately involved? Absolutely. Did I have access to warhead performance data? Yes. I worked independently and in teams on the systems I named. I was privy to the results of classified warhead tests for a bunch of antitank weapons from Maverick through the Skeet submunition on Assault Breaker. I've spent time in JMEM when it consisted of a huge stack of giant orange binders, most classified, including the one which meticulously analyzed (wonderful pics) tank kill causation in the 1967 War. I've studied the WSEG (Weapon System Evaluation Group) report on the Yom Kippur War. I've pored over analyses of all sorts of attacks, including reviewing and assessing strike video before any analysis was readily available. I spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how to kill various Russian targets. All at once or piecemeal by beating down individual weapon systems on a strike cruiser absent a big enough weapon to do the job. I've also worked DAS issues for US AFVs. Laser guided AS-9 and AS-10 were very scary in their time, and M113s were quite killable even from a near miss.  Additionally, I used to personally and privately consult for Dr. Hans Mauer, who was CTO for MSG, ex- Paperclip scientist and technical genius. One such discussion ultimately resulted in TOW 2B Aero. I've worked in all of the following weapon areas: antitank, air-to-air, air-to-ground, antiship, runway attack and rapid repair, SAM, DEW, Deep Strike, Spec Ops, anti SUAWACS and more.  
 
As I said before, I've never served; I have spent, all told, a few hours in operational tanks in the field; haven't been shot at, been mined or broken track in a swamp. I'm perfectly happy to learn from those lie you who've been in combat, including my now retired brother George, who have years of experience. Indeed, I relish and appreciate getting the insider perspective of the BTDT crowd, whether still serving or retired. I am a lifelong student of weapons and war. I freely grant my knowledge base is badly out of date in places, but a great deal of what I learned is still quite useful. I'm glad I made the suggestion I did, for it's taught me a great deal in the process. If it's not operationally viable in real world terms, therefore even theoretically in game terms, I'm fine with that.
 
If my memory of underpass height is correct, then I'd say that a static detonated 122 from above is a bit high as far as my estimated Ainet HOB (1-2 m), but certainly should give at least some sense of what to expect. Igloo thanks the insurgents for increasing cooler sales via KBR!
 
LukeFF,
 
I do wish you'd stop confusing your unit motto with acceptable social behavior--which yours isn't.  Your compulsive need to snipe at me indicates insecurity on your part and doesn't reflect well on you. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Word of advice: be very, very, very skeptical of anything John Kettler writes. 

I generally try to encourage people to test things when they have questions about game mechanics, but I don't think nuzrak's tests show anything. What does "BMP-3M moving into the LOS of static M2-A3 in open ground" really mean? If the moving units are stopping the instant they move into LOS of the stationary units then the movement is irrelevant. If they are moving while in LOS of the enemy then the distance and speed need to be known. The results are further compromised by the separate commander not effectively communicating with the crew, a known issue.

That new polish rifle the MSBS is looking better and better with time. The kind of gun the ACR should have been, it has all the best ideas from many of the cutting edge rifles.  The conventional layout rifle is particularly attractive, as opposed to the bullpup. Have heard the ones on show at shotshow 2015 were impressive. I can say with confidence I will purchase one once they hit US civilian market.
 
http://youtu.be/27Te9cGGVpI
 
Also, I have said this several times but Poland is life, Poland is love. Including Poland in CMBS in some future module would separate me from my US dollars with impressive speed.
 
In short, add Poland.

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.

panzersaurkrautwerfer,
 
I was in the T-62 they had in the "know the enemy" garden at NTC. Technically, I wasn't supposed to be in it, but what's an excited Threat Analyst presented with real Russian tanks to do? At just over 5'11" I was too tall by a bunch of inches (couldn't close turret hatch while standing), but I'm here to tell you that thing was dangerous. While static. It's full of unradiused square steel bars (as in will cut you) and flanges with sharp corners and ends. I thought about trying to get into the driver's seat but was already dinged up and was also afraid I might get caught by hanging about too long. Clearly, there's a reason for those well padded tanker helmets, but for the tankers' sakes, I hope their coveralls are thick and tough, too. Interestingly, while the Israelis upgunned and reworked their captured T-55s, they did nothing of the kind with the T-62s and happily took as many as they could get. But then, they're Israelis, the Finns of the Middle East!
 
Love your plywoodium! Where does that fall on the Periodic Table? In any event, it should be much cheaper than the Holy Grail of military aerospace--Unobtainium. 
 
MikeyD,
 
Fortunately for the Russians, Armata's supposed to be a tank, not an IFV. Theoretically, it could pull off all that weaponry. Using it effectively? Another matter entirely.  Might wind up as the high tech version of the T-28 and T-35, though. Lots of weapons and no real way to use them as intended.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Turn 4, which just keeps giving...
 
 
A few seconds after that last hit (which whited out my screens), I got another spot. Right near the BTR I killed last turn (or two ago)...
 

 
 
Yeah, no. Not a good idea. Never, never, never, always avoid previous kills. By definition, you're near a kill zone.
 

 
I almost felt bad about this one. Bwa-ha-ha!
 
3 kills, all by Blue 3. Positioning is key. One unit (like DMS' tank), can kill a lot of enemy.
 
 
So, a summary is in order:
 

 
 
A hard spot? Yes, that's where he is: between a rock and a hard place.
 

 
 
Hope it's a hit.
 
My plans:
 

 
The various desiderata near my HQ (blood circle) move towards the orange circle. I need to seal off that area. The Brad in the orange will move forward, slowly. He'll die, but may get some first.
 
The yellow circle needs some firepower. I'm moving IanL in there, and circling Blue 2 nearby (blue arrow). The other 2 blues move clear of the smoke and gain good vantage points. I hope they can isolate the river valley. I need to keep DMS from getting anymore squirters through.
 
My in-town squad has split. One team goes high and covers front, one team goes left and covers the road.
 
I get out of the Humvee deathtrap and follow in trace of my one surviving sniper team. I'll be on the bottom edge of that orange circle, leading from the rear.
 
Ken out.

Was it going anywhere good though?
 
 
Christ.  Most game forums I feel like a dinosaur.  This is the one forum I've run into where there's more than a few posters I have to address as "sir" if I ran into them offline.
 
 
To be fair, at that point in time I wouldn't have known what was authentic or not, I just knew tanking was cool, and it was less fruity than Mechwarrior (and as much as I liked Mechwarrior, the setting was something that always annoyed me deeply).  Roaming through Iran or Bosnia turning T-72s inside out was pretty awesome.
 
On the other hand, ripplefire Hellfires is pretty much as close to an apocalyptic event as a flight simulator will give you, so Longbow 2 was good for that much.  
 
Re: Sims in general
 
I lack the patience for them these days.  Especially flight sims with all the fiddly physics and systems.  What I liked about the old Janes sims was you could adjust how real intense the simulator was going to be, so if you wanted Firehawks: The Game, Longbow would do it for you, or the other way around.
 
That's also the bigger gripe I had with Steel Beasts.  If I just wanted a tool for my LTs to practice things in it, it felt like they had to genuinely know what they're doing with both tanks and the sim, while stuff like Combat mission you need a little guidance, but something straight forward like platoon vs platoon movement to contact is pretty intuitive once you know what the buttons mean.  (Which is why I shared CMSF with thems all)  If I could have turned the realism down more on Steel Beasts to focus more on the "higher" level stuff, I'd oddly have gotten more training value out of it.
 
At least that's how I remember it.  Honestly haven't touched it in years. 

Okay, first things first.
 
7,500 points? What was I thinking? That's not a lot. Not by a stretch. I was imagining a multi-company engagement with arty and air. All inside of 30 minutes. Sigh. I'm not a big QB player. And it shows. 7,500 points buys a single understrength company.
 
My plan...I want to bombard DMS' setup zone, as allowed, in the second minute of the game. That's just to piss him off! Once he's off his equilibrium, it will be that much easier to topple him! Also, I need something to fight his Tunguskas. Of COURSE he's going to buy some. Wouldn't you?
 
Also, I'll lay some smoke on his side of the bridge, so I can get my commander on it.
 
Based on my self-imposed point austerity, all I can afford is a 4 piece 120mm mortar platoon. So, that's in.
 
For combat power, I've got 2 Bradley (APS) mech platoons, but understrength. 2 tracks, 2 squads, each platoon.
 
A third platoon is made up 3 elite APS Abrams. Hey! C'mon, it's MY AAR! These are the guys I'm counting on. Elite, highly motivated, +2. Even if their tank gets destroyed, I'm gonna ammo them up and send them in. They told me that's how they want it.
 
A company HQ ties together the three platoons, adds an FO (to call in the mortars), and is mounted in an ERA Brad.
 
Between the Abrams, the Brads' TOW missiles, and the Javelins, Ima gonna blow stuff up!!!
 
Oh, I've added a little razzle dazzle. Since DMS will be looking for a Humvee, I added 3 more. Each stuffed with an elite .338 lapua sniper team. Yeah, these are the "snatch victory from the jaws of defeat" guys. If DMS manages to get his commander near the bridge, I'm going to have 3 sniper teams in overwatch waiting to perforate the bridge of his nose. Ouch. That metaphor hurt nearly as much as .338 Lapua does. The Humvees should confuse him. The snipers should screw him. Yeah, it's my "Screwed and confused" tactic. They teach this at Sandhurst. Or they should.
 
Oh, I tossed Mk19 grenade launchers onto the top of the Humvees. Because otherwise they look naked.
 
Pix in a bit.
 
 
Ken out.

Made this as a joke out of boredom.
 
 

 

Maybe its better BF stays away from Asia. They make Shock Force then soon after look what happens in Syria. They announce and start working on Black Sea and look what happens in Russia.

They announce Combat Mission Asia with China, Russia, North/South Korea, Japan and the US in it and I wouldn't want to think of a world where the same trend takes place.

As they say bad things happen in 3s.

Yes avoid asia....

Finally these are getting shorter:
 
Re: Target pods
 
It wasn't overcast that resulted in poor bombing results.  It certainly did not help, don't get me wrong, but the greater problem was target discrimination.  Targeting pods were pairing the advances in optics with the realization future conflicts were going to be against enemies that weren't going to be as obvious as a Soviet tank battalion rolling through Fulda.
 
Re: TIC
 
TIC is "troops in contact" there's a variety of flavors of contact, but they all involve troops being somethinged by the enemy (electronic warfare effects, obstacles and CBRN without actual enemy troops in sight are all forms of contact for instance).  So to that end, in terms of CAS TIC could refer to the enemy 100 meters away....or it could refer to an Abrams company shooting up  stuff from 2.5 KM out.  
 
In terms of weapons, effects and the enemy, in a COIN environment in much more restrictive on what we can do to the environment, and the targets much lower value.  Flattening a building to kill a guy with an AK is usually not a prefered amount of force, and the expectations of real estate preservation are high enough that it can be mission detrimental.  
 
If that same building is full of Krasnovian regulars with AT weapons, MGs, and this is a full spectrum kinetic fight, if I turn the building into literal rubble, it's okay.  SDBs are a great choice for murdering mortar teams, knocking out individual vehicles, etc, etc.  If I'm facing down AFVs and larger infantry formations, I'd rather have the 500 LBS to make an impression.
 
Also generally missiles are preferred for TIC.  A hellfire knows where it's going and will try super hard to get to that point for instance.  Gun rounds are totally slaves to physics once they come out of the tube.  The CEP is a lot higher and 30 MM will ruin days. If we're talking about SDB or Hellfires, it's much better to know that the building on the left is about to disappear, everyone get down, than be somewhere in the area where it's going to start raining 30 MM.
 
Of course this assumes the USAF doesn't just pickle on you anyway.
 
Re; B-1
 
Look at the crew visibility from the cockpit of a B-1 vs an A-10.  The reason the B-1 blue on blued friendly troops was it was unable to spot the IR strobes on the soldiers on the ground.  Targeting pods use thermal optics, which cannot see the IR spectrum because it cannot see any sort of light, it just sees heat.  However as per other CAS platforms, pilots flying using NODs, with the ability to see outside the flight deck can see IR strobes which pretty much resolves the question about which set of guys are our guys.  Once the friendlies are identified (and IR strobes are the sort of thing you can make out for miles if you've got them on), then switching to thermal optics type systems for target acquisition is the preferred method.
 
Additionally by totally lacking the ability to acquire the friendlies with eyeballs using NODs  the B-1 cannot utilize the PEQ-15 type lasers the friendly forces would have had, that could have been used to direct the CAS onto target (this is something I've done with CCA "you see the building with the lasers pointed at it?" "Rog"  "in there" "Rog."  
 
It's a lot easier than having a ten minute conversation about it, and GPS grids are marginal when dealing with things that are pretty close to each other (while the coordinates for two buildings will be different, it's much easier to unambiguously point to the building, than try to establish if the building on the right or left is grid 12345678 or 12345669).
 
Which again points to the USAF using a suboptimal platform that cannot coordinate, and thus cannot fill the S part of CAS. 
 
I've been present for non-aviators calling for USMC fixed wing, and I've called for USMC rotary wing.  Unless I forgot I'm a pilot, I do not think you are correct.  Or at the least the USMC had a flexible enough operating procedure to recognize we did not have a FAC or JTAC type guy handy and the Army ground dude on the phone was as good as it was going to get.   USAF wouldn't even show up unless it was their JTAC.  
 
Here's the genius of calling for CCA. There's a set format to talking to the birds, but here's more or less how it worked out:
 
Helicopter enters your net after being pushed from higher
He gives you who he is (callsign, weapons on board)
You give your call sign(s), force disposition
He acknowledges all, locates you
You give him tactical task and purpose
He sends back coordination measures if required
Mission.
 
So it'd look something like:
 
CCA: "Any station this net, this is Bandit 64, we are two times AH-64 with eight hellfire, 38 rockets, and 200 rounds 30 mm each"
Ground: "This is Demon White 1, we are four times tanks located vicinity OBJ Jabberwocky, stationary, defending.  Enemy infantry to our front
CCA: "Roger White 1.  We see you.  See bad guys
Ground "Bandit 64 I need you to attack to destroy enemy infantry located 400 meters my front vicinity hill mass. Watch for my tracer."
CCA: "Roger, watching for tracer....I see it, see target.  Check fire on my mark, we'll be coming in with rockets"
Ground" Roger Bandit 64"
CCA" Check fire" <white ceases fire>
 
This is just my sort of off the top of my head, but CCA was just that easy.  And that's possible through the sort of working relationship that CCA has with Army units, and USMC units have through their attached aviation elements in the MEU type structure.  USAF you can't trust with that because:
 
a. They don't trust you because you're not a JTAC
b. They really do not have the SA required to understand what you're doing
c. If it's a B-1 it likely cannot see you.

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!