Sgt Joch

Wow, if that doesn't illustrate the core differences in motivations between why we make games and why he does, nothing will... Madmatt p.s. Anyway, my checks are direct deposited so I do all my laughing right here at my desk! </font>

very nice photos.

thanks, any chance we could see those pics?

I agree, after all the Israeli Defence Forces still use the same plain olive-green uniforms. I am still wondering why the Canadian Army would officially approve a desert version of the CADPAT uniforms if they are not going to use them. The official site: CADPAT arid regions states that the Army would stockpile 3,000 uniforms which would be used for "specified operations".

Steve, Michael, when I made my post, I just knew some Equipment Grog would find a technical fault in my nice sentiment, but I am in no mood to argue. Have a nice day! Michael, do you have any feedback on how well the temperate CADPAT pattern is doing in Afghanistan terrain? Also, do you know why the Canadian military is not issuing uniforms in the CADPAT arid pattern to canadian troops deploying over there?

Very nice post Michael, we get so few stories about how our boys are doing in Afghanistan. It makes me mad that canadian soldiers are forced to spend their own pay on equipment, especially now that the federal government is forecasting a cumulative surplus of CAN.$86 Billion over the next five years

It's an important topic. A stryker brigade would rely heavily on air and artillery support to get it's mission accomplished. CAS should be an important component of CMSF. There was already a wealth of information in the UI thread, but some questions are not clear, such as: -who can call in airstrikes? everyone or just dedicated FAC units. Perhaps there should be two level, with regular units being able to call in basic strikes while dedicated FAC units would have more options, accuracy and quicker response time. -what about friendly fire? the US armed forces keep trying to minimise it, but it's still a fact of life. How will it be handled in CMSF? C3K, regarding your comment about Marine CAS, my understanding is that Marines do everything better than the other branches on a smaller budget, they are sort of like the Finns in that way

Yet another plot to hamstring the Syrian forces. The sense I get is that the player will have alot more options and flexibility in terms of artillery and air strikes, sounds very interesting.

Sorry, I should have said high-tech flying heavy machineguns... If I read this correctly, it means any american or syrian unit with a radio, which means all regular army units, will be able to call in air (us only) and artillery strikes (US and Syria) on any targets it can see, this will have a big impact on gameplay.

The air component seems to be shaping up nicely. C'Rogers, some facts about Gunships, they are basically flying heavy machineguns with a very high rate of fire. Because they fly at slower speeds than jets, they can engage specific targets for a longer time. Air Force Link Boeing web page

and more precise </font>

Fair enough, but you are restricting my ability to set up interesting what if scenarios. On your last point, may I presume that air power in CMSF will be more effective than in CM1.

Clear enough. I understand the rationale for the campaign, but what about QBs, if there will be such a thing. They are largely hypothetical to begin with. Will it not give an additional advantage to the US player if he knows that he never has to worry about Syrian air assets? and what about Red on Red scenarios which were discussed as a possibility, what would be the rationale for not having a "Red" air force?

Just to make sure I understand, are you saying the Syrian player will not under any circumstance, QB, scenario or campaign, be able to call in air strikes?

slightly off topic, but while surfing the net looking for Vietnam stuff, I came across these photos: Marines fighting in Hue, february 1968, which was pure urban fighting. Marine in the trenches at Con Thien, september 1967. You will notice that even back then, U.S. forces went into battle with personal body armour, in this case flak vests.

What tone? :confused: I intended that to be purely informational and matter of fact, and it still reads that way to me. If ever I mean to nag you, there won't be any doubt about it. Michael </font>

Perhaps Steve has remained silent because he feels that he already answered this question a couple of weeks ago and it doesn't interest him at the moment. BTW, IIRC the answer was that no, there will not be females nor mixed races. The reason is that the increased complication to the coding just wasn't worth it at this time. Maybe later. Michael </font>

Sounds like something I would say I agree that whether all the characters in CMSF are men or if 1-2 are women will have no impact on gameplay. In fact, in full combat uniforms, the only noticeable differences would be the size and the faces. However if it is reasonable to expect women to be serving in Stryker brigades in 2007, it would be nice if they were included in the game. I remember when I got Jane's F/A-18, how surprised I was the first time I had a female AI wingman. By the 10th mission, I did'nt care what sex my wingman was as long as he/she was a good shot.

To a large point, this is a theoretical argument, the supposed superiority of men over women in combat are greater upper body strength (about 30%) and testosterone. The first is mostly irrelevant in modern combat and the second, as all men know, can lead us to make as many stupid decisions as brave ones. It would be nice if Steve stepped in at this point to say if we will be leading all male armies or not.

Well that clears that up. While looking into this issue I found a discussion on another site which came to the conclusion that an AT-14 would not penetrate the front turret armor of a M1A1/2. This site: M1A1/2 ABRAMS appears to confirm that, if you look at the various tables entitled: "M1A1 Abrams MBT - Estimated Armor Protection Levels (2002)" and "M1A2 Abrams SEP MBT -Estimated Armor Protection Levels (2002-2004)". The front turret armor of a M1A1/2 is rated as being equivalent to 1,320-1,620 mm of armor protection against ATGMs. An AT-14 is rated as havind a maximum penetration value of 1,000-1,200 mm. However, it appears the AT-14 would still penetrate the glacis, lower front hull as well as the side and back armor. That is one of the advantages of the Javelin which goes in from the top, rather than the brute force approach of the AT-14. That site also has some great photos: [ October 29, 2005, 04:07 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

I believe they are referring to the issues with the NOMAD Head Up Display which are explained in pages 54-55 of the report: [ October 28, 2005, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]

I found the manufacturer's site. web page I see no reference to a wire. It has some cool videos though. I think the AT-14's status should be upgraded from "very nasty" to "very,very nasty".

I meant that in jest, I did not see it as an argument, more of a friendly discussion Actually, I am starting to wonder about the wire-guided part. I got my information from this link: web page but I have not found another web site that confirms it.

I love these technical arguments. The AT-14's wire has a maximum length of 3,500 meters, beyond that it becomes an unguided weapon and the PK goes down to nil. Battlefront had already mentioned that ATGM's would have a maximum effective range of about 2 km, which sounds about right to me. yes, but 600 or 1,200 (I have also seen 1,000 mm quoted) will still kill a T-72 or M1A1 with one shot from any aspect, if an AT-14 can see it, it's dead.

I protest on behalf of Syrian players, it's blatant discrimination in favour of U.S. weapons.