Sgt Joch

Does it make sense for the SAW (and the M4 or M16) to be that effective at long range? 5.56 ammo, presumably because of its lightweight, loses energy quickly as you can see from this chart: http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/perf_ballmil.html 5.56 ammo has to be moving at over 2,500 feet/second to fragment and cause a severe wound: http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_velocity.html That works out to a maximum of 225-250 yards when fired from a M249 SAW (21" barrel) or M16 (20" barrel) and between 150-175 yards when fired from a M4 (14.5" barrel). There is even data that a 5.56 round fired by a M4 may not reliably fragment past 10-90 meters: http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_m855yaw.html

one other interesting point about the SAW is that, apparently, 5.56 rounds fired tend to fragment more consistently, causing more damage, since the longer barrel imparts greater velocity: http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_m855yaw.html I don't know if this is modeled in the game, but then I don't know how strong the evidence of more reliable fragmentation is. It appears to be just anecdotal evidence.

I always presumed the M249 SAW's adoption was driven by logistics, namely to use the same 5.56x45 mm ammo as the rest of the squad's weapons. Since it uses the same ammo as the M4 or M16, I presume there is no reason it should act differently in game, except for the potentially higher ROF and perhaps greater accuracy due to use of the bipod stand.

it gets a bit confusing on the Syrian side since they use 2 types of small arms ammo. The AKM/AKMS, which is the newer version of the AK-47, uses 7.62x39 mm ammo, as does the RPK/RPD. The AKM is the primary firearm of lower quality Syrian troops and irregulars. The AK-74/AKS-74 uses 5.45x39 mm ammo. It is used by higher quality Syrian troops and some irregulars. The left hand column shows the level of 5.45x39 mm ammo. The second column from the left shows the level of 7.62x39 mm ammo and higher, so if you have a Dshk HMG which uses 12.7 mm ammo, its level would also be shown here. So you first have to check what kind of firearm a particular unit has before you know what column to look at for their ammo level.

You also have to make sure you are looking for the right things when you analyse reports of the 5.56 mm ammo's supposed lack of stopping power. When you look into reports of individuals taking multiple 5.56 hits before finally going down, the most plausible explanation appears to be poorer than expected fragmentation performance and/or rounds passing through individuals with minimal yaw, causing minimal damage: http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_m855yaw.html There is no reason to believe 7.62 mm NATO ammo would have performed better in the circumstances, since it would also tend to pass through with minimal yaw, causing minimal damage. You may also want to look at this article which compared the M4, M16 and M14 in Close Quarters battle and found no advantage to 7.62 vs 5.56 mm ammo: http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV8N1_ART01.pdf

there is more to 5.56 than just lightweight/carrying more ammo: http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_762.html -using 5.56 ammo allows you to design lighter, more compact firearms which are easier to handle in close quarters: the M4 is 30" retracted/weighs 7 lbs fully loaded while the M14 is 44" long/weighs 11 lbs. -although there are advantages to using a heavier bullet, you also have to look at terminal performance, 5.56 ammo, because it is lighter, tends to fragment more on impact than 7.62 ammo. When it does fragment, it can cause a more severe wound than a heavier bullet which may just punch through soft tissue. No bullet is one-shot/one-kill. You incapacitate another human being by either disabling his central nervous system or through loss of blood causing unconsciousness. Depending on the circumstances, 5.56 ammo can do this as well as a heavier bullet. So when you look at it on a global level, it makes more sense for an army to use 5.56 ammo in their primary firearms. There are more advantages than disadvantages.That does not mean, of course, that there is not a role for heavier ammo, when accuracy at a longer range is required, say for a marksman/sniper.

funny how people go on vacation without making sure all the work is done... it still smells to me like a conspiracy to get people to buy the British module.... ...which you should in any event...

yes, but you did not answer the question, mr. RL Tanker, is it realistic or not, I presume not?

From what I remember from forum discussions at the time, the main reasons why Syria was chosen were: 1) Syria has fairly decent armed forces by ME standards, certainly better than Iraq '03 or Iran in terms of capability and equipment. 2) In 2003-04, when the design decision was made, Syria actually was a potential US target and a US-Syria war did not seem as "fictional" as it does now. I also presume that with the Iraq '03 invasion being so recent, there was a desire to use a similar setting. Again, Syria seemed the most obvious choice.

purely personal taste whether you wish to use the whole screen or have black bands on either side. the image is not noticeably different in-game, unless you spend all your time obsessively comparing them side by side. you are of course free to play the game as you wish, as am I.

you can play widescreen, but its a bit of a hack, since CMBB does not natively support widescreen: step #1, if required, is to change the screen res. Navigate to your "CMBB" folder, usually in "Program Files" and delete the "combat mission BB prefs" file (a new one will be created when you next play the game). When you restart CMBB, you will be offered a choice of res based on what your monitor can handle. Usually the 1st one offered is the best. Please note that the res are offered in a 4:3 format. For example, my monitor is a Dell 27" WS with a 1920x1200@60hz native res. CMBB will offer me 1600x1200@60hz which I choose. step#2, when you start CMBB, you may have two black bands on either side. You then open your "Nvidia control panel", navigate to the "change flat panel scaling" tab and choose either "Nvidia scaling" or "own display scaling", based on personal taste. voila! CMBB's image is now stretched over the monitor. Not a true widescreen image, but good enough. remember also that since CMBB is such an old game, you can run even the biggest scenarios at 16xFSAA and 16xAniso with no issues.

found this as well: http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=6135 although they would be nice to have, I don't think there would be enough interest (other than from grogs), to justify their inclusion in CM:Normandy, given their marginal use in 1944-45.

I thought this might be of interest, pulled it out of Panzertruppen, vol.2: division---------------PzIII----PzIV----PzV----Stugs--------- 2nd Panzer-----------------------96------79----------------- 9th Panzer-----------------------78------40-------5---------- 11th Panzer-------------26-------89---------------8---------- 21st Panzer---------------------112-------------------------- 116th Panzer------------13-------86---------------6---------- Panzer Lehr-----------------------98------88----------------- 1st SS Panzer--------------------45-------54-----45-------- 2nd SS Panzer--------------------54------78------42-------- 12th SS Panzer-------------------98------66---------------- 17th SS Panzer-Grenadier--------------------------42------ List of tanks available to Panzer divisions in the West, june 10, 1944. Does not include independent units, like Tiger battalions. It also does not necessarily matchup to their TO&E when they went into combat, since some were still rebuilding. It does show that Pz IV and Vs were the main type with the Pz IV still the most prevalent type. How do the captured french types fit in? They are not included in any of the front-line Panzer units.

this may help: http://www.battlefront.com/helpdesk/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=119&nav=0,10,7

I presume it is a Vista issue. I am using the 185.85 XP drivers for my 8800GT and I have fog in CMBB.

As much as people like to focus on Tigers, it is important to remember that Panzers IV and V (Panthers) were the mainstay of the Panzer forces in june 1944. I dusted off my copy of "Fields of Fire" on the canadian campaign last night and 12th SS and Panzer Lehr were equipped exclusively with Pz IV and V when they counter-attacked the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division on June 7-10. I will recheck my copy of Panzertruppen, but I believe that in the Panzer Forces as a whole, the number of Pz IV and V was about even in june 1944.

He's not a Beta Tester though, does that still count?... AFAIK Normandy is still on schedule to come out this year.

A USMC Sergeant Major carries out the same role as a First Sergeant, but at a Battalion level. I presume he is shown as leader since the CO is a casualty, but what about the XO? He should normally take over. I see he is listed as "moving".

A "First Sergeant" in the U.S. Army/USMC is usually the senior NCO in an infantry company. As such, his role is role is basically administrative, making sure the company functions properly and the COs orders are properly carried out. He has no official combat or command role, although as third in command at Company HQ, after the CO and the XO, he could technically become acting CO if they were absent or incapacitated. If you have seen "Band of Brothers", the character of First Sergeant Lipton shows quite well what a good First Sergeant is supposed to do.

yes, in the canadian sector alone, the Can. 3 Inf. Div. fought elements of 1st SS, 2nd SS, 9th SS, 10th SS, Panzer Lehr and of course had its own private war with the 12th SS "HitlerJugend" division. That does not leave much for the yanks....

The NVA have a different viewpoint...

The driver quality appears to be becoming worse than usual. The latest XP drivers from Nvidia (190.38) screw up the night lighting effect in CMSF.

The Iraqi Army can probably handle current threats, not because of its capablity, which is poor, but because the opposition is also very weak. As long as the situation continues as is, Iraq could putter along, which is what everyone hopes. This would be similar to Korea, which went through a long rebuilding period after the Korean war. If the opposition forces become more of a threat however, it would pose a problem. External threats are probably not a major concern at this point, since Iran appears to be content with the current Iraqi government. The Sunnis, however, could be a problem. The US did a good job of co-opting and bringing Sunni opposition groups back to its camp which certainly helped in bringing about the current relative stability. However, the Iraqi government appears more interested in making sure the Shiites control everything rather than forging a more permanent partnership with the Sunnis. Depending on how that situation evolves, it raises the specter of civil war and another failed state, which no one wants. Only time will tell...

SO, my aim was not to misrepresent the Colonel's viewpoint since he does state that the Iraqi army, despite its shortcomings, should be able to handle the current threats. I thought his memo was very interesting since if you check up on him on the web, he does have a solid CV and he has been in a perfect position, as an advisor, to examine the Iraqi Army closely. In addition, Gen. Odierno is not very pleased that this memo has become public, which to me only lends credibility to its conclusions. Irrespective of how one feels about whether the US should have invaded Iraq, which is academic at this point, he does make a good point that the US has nothing to gain at this point by sticking around. The larger question for me, given his findings about the poor state of the Iraqi Army is whether this is Korea, 1953 or Vietnam, 1973. A lot of his comments about the Iraqi army could have been made about the South Vietnamese Army.

well, I would not underestimate the ability of politicians to keep making the same mistakes.....