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

  • Days Won


Saint_Fuller last won the day on April 2

Saint_Fuller had the most liked content!


About Saint_Fuller

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

331 profile views
  1. How long are we going to keep this going? Fact: The Bundeswehr does not have enough money to maintain its equipment. Fact: The Bundeswehr can't do its job, because it can't maintain the equipment it needs to do that. Conclusion: the Bundeswehr needs more money so it can do its job. I've provided the evidence, both the raw data and literal admissions from the German government that the Bundeswehr is not capable of doing its job, to prove my claims. You've yet to provide any at all for the claim that I'm wrong in any capacity, only "no u" denials and odd rambling about how we can't just trust the data because... something something muh unreliable statistics. I must admit I look eagerly forward to whatever sources you have to back your claims up. I do however expect you're going to keep up this dancing around and refusing to provide anything to back up your claims though, so until you shape up, I think we're done here.
  2. e: accidentally double-posted, please ignore
  3. The Bundeswehr doesn't have enough money to maintain the equipment it needs to do its job, ergo it's not getting the funding it needs to do its job. Its budget is too small. This surely cannot be that difficult to grasp?
  4. http://www.dw.com/en/germanys-lack-of-military-readiness-dramatic-says-bundeswehr-commissioner/a-42663215 https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article144983577/Muessen-uns-fragen-ob-wir-im-Ernstfall-abwehrfaehig-sind.html http://www.dw.com/en/german-military-short-on-tanks-for-nato-mission/a-42603112 http://www.dw.com/en/1-in-10-german-military-pilots-lost-helicopter-licenses-for-lack-of-flight-time/a-43646369 The statistics agree. So do the various anecdotal stories leaking from the Bundeswehr about the systemic issues plaguing them. Even the German government itself admits there's huge problems: indeed, they have been wringing their hands over the fact that the Bundeswehr is a trainwreck for years. In other words, all the evidence is broadly in agreement: the Bundeswehr is a mess that can't afford to keep its own equipment functional, and it can't train its people properly because it doesn't have enough functional equipment. What evidence do you have to offer to counter this?
  5. How can they be well-trained when the Bundeswehr quite literally can't even afford to keep its vehicles functional or its guns shooting? A few years ago, one of the Germans' highest readiness units literally showed up to a massive joint international training exercise with broomsticks painted black strapped to their vehicles because they didn't have enough machine guns that worked. This is the culmination of German training. Going "bang bang" with broomsticks at a massive pan-European defense exercise because they can't afford real guns. Now, to be honest, going "bang bang" is fine in something like in-unit exercises, even the Americans probably do it to save money. But while the Americans then go to train for real at the NTC with main battle tanks and IFVs and helicopters and fighter jets... the Germans still train with broomsticks at international NATO exercises. Because they can't afford to do better. Because the American battalion is backed by the DOD, which keeps enough money around that when necessary, the Americans can get the spare parts and ammunition and fuel to get all their equipment in action and ready to go. Which is how the National Guard can go from "we drive half our tanks" to "YEE-HAW BOYS LET'S GO" in so many months. The Germans can't even do that with their highest-readiness units. They ran out of money in the spare parts budget, and had to strip the rest of the army for spare parts to rush to PzGrenBtl 371 (the German contribution to NATO's VHRJTF) for NATO exercises a few years back. They still couldn't manage to get the battalion to its paper strength. 180,000 personnel and a budget of 40 billion euros a year, and they can't even manage to field one battalion at full strength despite borrowing equipment from the entire rest of the army. Like @Rinaldi said, the Bundeswehr is an utter mess. Even the SPD acknowledges it, and they're the people who complain about "NATO saber rattling" and see the BW's budget as a piggy bank to be hacked away.
  6. I assume you mean M60 and not M48, since the M48 entered service in 1953 and design work on T95 didn't even begin until 1955? Anyway. Abrams did not and has not ever, to my knowledge, used silica-cored armor. Silica-cored armor is the hottest armor tech of 195X, hence why you find it on things like T95, the prototypes for M60 (but not the production model, due to cost issues), and T-64. By the late 70s, the hot new thing on the block was special armor such as Chobham, and the derived versions that the Germans used for Leopard 2 and the Americans used for Abrams. We know Abrams used special armor, because some of the relevant documents have been declassified and are available online. The main part of the Abrams' special armor array is steel/rubber/steel "sandwich" NERA tiles, and in some places (like the turret side armor, depicted below) behind the sandwiches there are backing plates of steel and some unknown, possibly ceramic, material. This might be silica, but it could just as well be some other ceramic material or even some form of plastic for all we know. I also strongly doubt the idea that PT-76 could frontally defeat Abrams, since it was specifically designed to be proof against 5-inch HEAT warheads and Soviet 115mm APFSDS over the frontal arc: even MBT-70, its predecessor, had been protected against 3-inch HEAT warheads, such as the PT-76's BK-350M. I am incredibly dubious of this claim. The most common APFSDS round for M68-equipped US tanks in Germany is M833, and in M256-armed tanks is M829. Both of those two rounds would be able to reliably penetrate anything the Soviets can bring to bear at any point in 1985. Going two years forward and backward for fun: In 1983, the best round the US has is M774, which can kill anything the Soviets can put on the field, except possibly T-80A with its new turret. But those top-of-the line vehicles that might be able to survive M774 are still very much the minority: the bulk of the Soviet tank fleet remains older T-64s and T-72s, which are vulnerable to M774. In 1987, things are somewhat different: M829 and M833 are still the main two US rounds in service. The new T-80U with Kontakt is basically impregnable to M833, and even M829 will have trouble with the ERA. Hence the development of M900 and M829A1. However, as before, those vehicles are in the minority, and the bulk of the Soviet Army's armored forces are still trucking along in older T-64s and T-72s, which M829 and M833 are still fully adequate for dealing with.
  7. Just had a tremendous ordnance shock

    The Iraqis bought T-72Ms from the USSR in the mid-80s. It was parts from this lot that were used to locally assemble the Asad Babils. Some parts were locally sourced, almost certainly, but there's no real reason to believe this included doing something as inane and frankly stupid as replacing the armor with mild steel, or even that they had to use locally-produced armor plating in the first place. And even if they had needed to source armor locally, Iraq kept building ballistic missiles while under heavy UN sanctions specifically intended to keep them from getting such missiles and after suffering massive economic/industrial damage in the Gulf War. If Iraqi industry post-1991 didn't even have the ability to make something as basic as decent armor plating (which the claim that Asad Babil had to use mild steel armor logicaly implies), then it really begs the question how they managed to make far more complicated things such as ballistic missiles.
  8. Just had a tremendous ordnance shock

    The myth of mild steel armor on Asad Babil is exactly that, a myth. The Iraqis used the same composition of armor steel as the Soviets themselves, mainly because the "locally produced" Asad Babils were basically just T-72M parts kits bought from the Soviets and put together in Iraqi plants. Asad Babil was functionally the same as other non-WarPac T-72Ms, because it more or less was. The Iraqis had T-72s exactly as good as what their status of getting aid as a non-WarPac nation allowed them to. The various variations of T-72 they had were basically adequate tanks not really any different from the bulk of non-WP T-72s, the main issue with them being less with the tanks themselves, and more with the fact that 1) the Iraqis were terrible tankers and 2) they were issued with decades old obsolete ammunition.
  9. Action at Chervona Hirka - An After Action Report

    Sorry about the lack of updates, been somewhat busy over the last week, haven't managed to work much on this. So! I don't have an actual content post ready yet, but here's a wide angle view of the battlefield as of the conclusion of the last post. Marked the area where the BTRs were engaged, for reference. This is hopefully helpful in forming a better view of what's going on at the moment, and of my current disposition.
  10. Action at Chervona Hirka - An After Action Report

    As promised, here's the first actual AAR content, featuring the first five minutes of the match. Bit short, as there's simply not much happening this early in the game, but there was some action I felt were interesting enough to warrant a post. The first minute or so is fairly quiet from my end. However, it does not take long for that to change: unconfirmed AFV contacts are spotted moving north across the fields, in the direction of the river. Potential indication that the enemy is moving to attack along Axis Bravo? Soon after, the shooting begins. One of the unconfirmed contacts from the previous turn is resolved into a BTR. A Bulat quickly engages. The first shot somewhat miraculously fails to kill the BTR, the APFSDS dart only wrecking its wheels. The BTR, its wheels badly damaged, continues to crawl forward at a snail's pace. At least until it is hit and destroyed by a second shot from the Bulat. Its luck did not last long enough to save it from a second shot, evidently. A second BTR is spotted just as the first dies, and it is engaged by the recon platoon's two BMP-2s. It is knocked out in short order. A third BTR is spotted soon after: the BRM-1K that caught sight of it takes the shot, but it goes high. The BTR manages to pull behind some trees and break contact before the BRM can fire a second shot. This more or less concludes the brief engagement. With the direction the BTRs I have spotted were moving, I suspect the enemy may be moving his forces to attack along the river (i.e. axis Bravo). But as the location of the enemy's forces, besides those three BTRs, remains unknown to me at this time, I can't really draw any firm conclusions about the enemy's chosen axis of advance yet.
  11. Who's winning the tank war?

    Inasmuch as storage bins happen to function as spaced armor by virtue of "it's a steel box", yes. They are no substitute for actual special armor, which loops right around to my initial statement that the Type 10 is basically unarmored on the turret sides. On the glacis it's just a steel plate that serves as the outermost "skin" of the hull. You can see the way it's bolted to the hull here, and it's not very thick either based on the edge visible around the headlights. It might provide a little bit of extra protection, but at a guess it's primarily there to keep the composite armor blocks on the glacis in place while permitting easy access (just unbolt the plate and you can take the armor modules out easily when preparing the tank for transport).
  12. Who's winning the tank war?

    I am quite sure that they are in fact storage bins (that do act as spaced armor, granted), yes. Exhibit A. Visible hatches on the storage bins. Exhibit B, a different type of bin without hatches, but with hinges at the top. I expect they open similarly to the Leclerc's bins. Exhibit C, showing the same type of bins from Exhibit B, including the hinges at the top and what I assume are handles at the bottom.
  13. Who's winning the tank war?

    I said yellow boxes, if you want to play the pedantic nitpicking game. Regardless. The parts in yellow represent modules that act as spaced armor, namely storage boxes on the turret side and a steel plate on the glacis. The red parts are the actual special armor modules. If it was all special armor, there'd be no need to separate the modules by color, would there?
  14. Good day everyone. This AAR is based on a PBEM of a quite interesting scenario created by @Rinaldi, "Action at Chervona Hirka", and based on the (quite well-made, I would say) master map by @H1nd. SITUATION AND BRIEFING It's the early hours of June 11th, 2017. I have command of the Ukrainian 15th Mechanized Battalion of the 58th Mechanized Brigade, deployed to hold up the brigade's northern shoulder around the town of Chervona Hirka. My primary objective is to retain control of the town itself, as it sits adjacent to the enemy's MSR and controls access to side roads that could let the Russians bypass Krolevets. This is Objective Aleksej. A roadblock positioned astride the road to the south is a secondary objective, designated Objective Vasilij. It is held by the battalion recon platoon occupying Battle Position 1. I do not expect to hold the position for very long against enemy attack, if it comes to that. However, forcing the enemy to deploy to destroy the roadblock will cost him precious time, and hopefully, the recon platoon will provide me early warning of enemy movement. My third objective is to attrit and delay the enemy as much as possible: inflicting losses and forcing him to deploy a significant amount of forces to overcome my position will cost him time and weaken his ability to continue the thrust. In this case, the priority is to engage and destroy his infantry and their carriers, with armor and logistical vehicles to be engaged as targets of opportunity. At my disposal is the aforementioned 15th Mechanized Battalion, reinforced by a platoon of armor (BM Bulats) from the Brigade and a platoon of MT-12 antitank guns. The enemy force is a BTR-equipped motor rifle unit with armor support, and the incoming attack is likely going to be in battalion strength, though possibly somewhat diminished: a company-sized enemy force was repulsed yesterday, leaving behind several BTRs and T-72s. PLAN There are three probable routes for the enemy to attack down, by my estimation. Map is hopefully legible enough to interpret. My intent is to cover all three probable axes of advance: The field, Axis Alpha, is the fastest and most direct approach to the town. However, it is covered from three sides, forming a fire sack to attrit the enemy as much as possible if they choose to advance there. The Bulats and antitank guns will engage from BP 3, ATGM teams of the battalion antitank platoon are situated in BP 2, and the right flank is covered by infantry with RPGs as well as their BMP-2s, occupying BP 4. Axis Bravo, along the river on my left flank, would potentially allow the enemy to maneuver very close to Objective Aleksej while remaining out of my view. A rifle platoon is deployed on the north side of BP 2 to keep the area under observation. If the enemy chooses to focus his main effort down this axis of advance, that platoon is to act as a delaying obstacle so I can shift my forces accordingly. Axis Charlie, the road on the south, is the third potential route for the enemy to take, and the one I judge to be least likely: it is constricted and forces the enemy to drive straight along a fairly narrow path, directly into any potential ambushes. Nevertheless, if the enemy chooses to move through here, my intent is, much like with Axis Bravo, to delay them with the limited forces I have at BP 6, to buy time for shifting around other forces to BP 9 at the south end of Chervona. The artillery has pre-registered target points on positions on the east edge of the field: these are where I expect the enemy to position support by fire elements in case of an attack along Axis Alpha. Artillery fire on the TRPs will hopefully obscure the vision of and damage/disrupt any SBF elements on these positions. Phase Line Forward is the first position where the enemy is likely to be engaged, by the battalion recon platoon at BP 1. PL Midfield is the forward line of the battalion's main body. PL Stop is the no-pass line. If the enemy attacks along axis Alpha: Forces at BP 2 and BP 4 are to put flanking fire on enemy forces as they move across the field, and then withdraw to contract the line when the enemy approaches PL Midfield: the forces at BP 2 will move to BP 8, and the units at BP 4 to BP 9. Alternatively, units at BP 2 and BP 4 will be kept in place to strike at the enemy's trailing elements, if he chooses to pass them by. Forces in BP 3 just past PL Midfield will be the first to engage the enemy when he breaks into Chervona Hirka from the field, and will if necessary cede the edge of the town and attempt to conduct a fighting withdrawal to BP 12. BP 8, 9, and 12 are the final fighting positions, being directly in front of PL Stop. If the enemy attacks along axis Bravo: Forces at BP 2 will engage the enemy first, and fight to delay the enemy as long as possible. They may attempt to conduct a fighting withdrawal toward BP 10, and then either fight in position there or withdraw a second time to further strengthen BP 3. Units at BP 3 and BP 8 will reorient to face a thrust from the northeast. If they can be safely pulled out of their position, forces from BP 4 will move to BP 12. If necessary, forces at BP 8 will conduct a fighting withdrawal to BP 12. If the enemy attacks along axis Charlie: Forces at BP 6 will be the first to engage the enemy, to delay and attrit them. Units at BP 4 will move south to strike at the enemy's flank where they are strung out along the road, and units at BP 8 will move to BP 9 to receive a thrust from the south. In the event I fail to stop the enemy and lose control of Chervona Hirka, I am counting on inflicting enough losses to leave the enemy unable to effectively take advantage of the ground they have taken. My briefing does not indicate that force preservation is a critical concern, but ideally, I want to keep losses below 30%, to ensure the battalion remains capable of further combat operations. And well, that's it for the opening post. The next update (and first actual AAR content!) should be along fairly soon.
  15. AFV Show & Tell

    My first thought was T-60, but the hull front doesn't look right for that. So, hrm, after some research (clicking about on Wikipedia)... is it a T-40 amphibious tank?