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

Stryker vs Bradley

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

So yes I view all descussions about hardware as a huge "what if."

I think you misunderstand me.  Of course the overall discussion is "what if we could change the Stryker?"  What I'm saying is that beyond that, your approach to design is traversing through the chain of "what ifs" of situations.  Naturally, to some extent, one can approach design this way  - what if my linkage breaks?  What if the supplier gives me parts that only rate to a fifth of their claim?  There are certain points where the what if becomes a little absurd and outweighs the cost.

While you have a point - if things go wrong on the battlefield - it costs lives.  That's quite the big cost.  But you can still bring the cost and feasibility into it by considering the big picture beyond the narrow scope of the tactical battle.

Taking your example of the Puma - it is indeed a fine vehicle, but if you consider it in context it might not make sense for everyone. It may make sense for the Bundeswehr since they anticipate using a small number of them (say a brigade) in any combat they anticipate being in.  But would it have made sense for the USSR to design and build a similar vehicle?

I may get some flak for this, but I'd argue the BMPs and BTRs are actually fairly well designed for their role in the battlefield.  The USSR primarily needed a lot of steel to fill out its massively motorised army and accomplished just that with effective, if not elegant or ergonomic vehicles.  They may not win 1:1 against the enemy, but that doesn't matter when you have very mobile vehicles with a lot of firepower that can stack your odds 20:1 with mobility and suppression.  Would I want to ride in one?  No.  But I could see the attractiveness as a brigade commander, for example.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2018 at 3:03 AM, Oleksandr said:

4 (OPTIONAL) - Weapons module should  have an option to be controlled from the distance (with main engine being turned off) - so you dig in on lets say in long term defensive position and then you leave your vehicle and control its turret from the distance while sitting somewhere safe. 


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Tbh, as a non military type, if a US unit has attrited on ability, force and basic common sense  to the point of using its Bradleys/IFVs as a remote controlled  static, emplaced light artillery/ATGM post (?)  then no amount of features or technology on those Bradleys is going to outweigh the fact that it's now doing the exact opposite of what it was specifically designed to do. 

And if a future IFV was designed to be able to used like that then calling it an IFV is a complete misnomer. 

I believe... 


Edited by kinophile

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

One word: Ogre

Ogre and its sequel, G.E.V., are tactical ground combat games set in the late 21st century. In 2085 A.D., armored warfare is faster and deadlier than ever. Hovercraft, tanks and infantry slug it out with tactical nukes. But the most feared weapon of all needs no human guidance. It's the giant cybernetic tank called the Ogre


You can learn all about non-manned tanks, and how it is inevitable that they will turn on their human overlords. 

Unmanned tanks? No thanks. ;)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't they mean "Remote Control Tanks" as in Drones etc?   Along with remote controlled military aircraft (and auto-driving cars and trucks), that seems to be the future. 

Am more worried about the cars and trucks for regular use on roads as for sure they will get hacked.  In fact I doubt we will see that happen commercially until a lot further in the future than the year 2025 being forecast by Uber and Musk etc.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2017 at 11:45 PM, DougPhresh said:

The Americans might’ve saved 15 years and a lot of money if they just bought LAVs in the first place.

If the SBCT was just a fleet of wheeled armored vehicles, then you'd have a point.  As the case was it was an entire Brigade built around a variety of information age innovations that have since trickled over the fence into ABCT/IBCT (it's worth keeping in mind the SBCT as a paper concept predates the entire BCT construct, and in many ways served as it's model).

Also the LAV platform for a variety of reasons served as a good launching point, but ultimately the platform just isn't the same as a Stryker.  

Re: Topic

A bit late to the party but it's comparing apples to electron flux capacitors.  You can't eat the electron flux capacitor, you can't go back in time and almost seduce your own mother with the apple.  IFVs have a distinct role as an element of the combined arms fight.  Wheeled APCs like the Stryker have their own distinct mission.  There's some overlap between the two, but again this gets to the reality that the Stryker does not look like a Bradley because it doesn't have the same mission set/design considerations so of course it's going to be "different"

Re: Dragoon

It's not a bad idea.  In a lot of places the 105 MM is too much gun, and the low ammo capacity is a hindrance on extended missions.  The 105 MM does have a bit more anti-armor capacity...but the anti-armor for an SBCT unit comes more from ATGMs than the MGS vehicles anyway.  30 MM is more handy for most situations, and the fact it doesn't require a highly specialized vehicle is pretty cool too.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

to @panzersaurkrautwerfer's point If you want to understand the SBCT you need to do a little more reading than just looking at vehicles. The concept that it evolved from is almost 25 years old now.  If you want to read a good document on development of the concept and it's eventual deployment and combat experience you can pick it up for $3 on Amazon.


The concept was 6 years in the making before the vehicle was decided upon.  The MGS was the most problematic variant and should give pause to those trying to fit the concept with heavier weapons than fit that concept.

For those critical of the Stryker, it's initial evaluation from the NTC OPFOR is interesting.

Although Millennium Challenge 2002 demonstrated the brigade's capabilities on only a small scale and minor problems with equipment occurred, the units that deployed did well in the exercise. After the first simulated mission, the soldiers of the National Training Center's permanent Opposing Force, the 11th Armored Cavalry, noted that the Stryker went places at greater speeds and with less noise and more agility than any vehicle they had previously encountered. The vehicle's digital communications suite also permitted it to call quickly for a lethal array of supporting fire. As a result, the 11th Cavalry began preparing for the full brigade's upcoming certification exercise at Fort Irwin long before it would have done so for a Bradley- or M1-equipped unit.
Department of  Defense. From Transformation to Combat: The First Stryker Brigade at War - The Test of Combat in Iraq in 2003 - 2004, Mosul, Baghdad, An Najaf, Tall Afar, Carter Ham (Kindle Locations 260-265). Progressive Management. Kindle Edition.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now