Sgt Joch
-
Posts
4,557 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Sgt Joch
-
-
very nice photos.
-
thanks, any chance we could see those pics?Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:They're using them right now; one of our Warrant Officers is over there and sent a bunch of pics. They're definitely wearing them.
-
I agree, after all the Israeli Defence Forces still use the same plain olive-green uniforms.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:c) camouflage patterns really don't make much of a difference despite the hype, IMO, anyway; you get dirty in the field within 12 hours and start to blend in naturally in any event.
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:
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.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:For Syrians we will likely simulate them differently. Far more restrictive in terms of doctrine and capabilities.
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...Originally posted by c3k:Well, more than just flying machine guns. Depending on the model; 20mm, 40mm, 105mm weaponry. Of course, all that linked into high-tech spotting and targeting systems. Kind of fun to pick a window through which to send a 105 round....
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.Originally posted by Battlefront:Anybody with a radio can call for support, be it air or artillery. FSOs (Fire Support Officers) simply do it inherently better and with more flexible options. The Stryker Rifle Company has a dedicated FIST (Fire Support) Team in a specially designed Stryker. Each Rifle Platoon has a FO assigned to it as well. There are plenty of options for calling in support effectively.
-
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.
-
and more precise </font>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> On your last point, may I presume that air power in CMSF will be more effective than in CM1.
-
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?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Correct, the Syrians will never, ever, under any circumstances be able to call upon air assets for combat support missions. There is no scenario in the world that could explain them being able to do this in any meaningful way.
-
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?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Since the Syrians will be capable of air ops for about the first 10 minutes of the conflict, we aren't even simulating a Syrian Airforce for the Avenger to shoot at.
-
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.Originally posted by Michael Emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JC_Hare:
...if you are going to respond to my posts Emrys, please refrain from using that tone, it reminds me too much of my wife when she is having her period and one nagging wife is enough for any man.
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.Originally posted by Michael Emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JC_Hare:
It would be nice if Steve stepped in at this point to say if we will be leading all male armies or not.
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 sayOriginally posted by aka_tom_w:ITS JUST A GAME!
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.Originally posted by fytinghellfish:I just consulted with my local Russian weapons expert and he said there are no wire guided versions of the AT-14.
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:
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:Originally posted by Battlefront.com:That quote in the newspaper article about the "None of the 100 display units in Iraq are being used" is a mystery to me. I have no idea what this is refering to since each of the 300+ strykers have 1 control screen and 2 FBCB2 screens. That's 300 of one type and 600 of the other. So what is this "100" that is being talked about? I haven't a clue. The only criticism of the screens I saw in the Mosul report were not specific to the screen but instead general complaints about FBCB2 (which is separate from the Stryker).
Steve
Discussion: The Vehicle Commander (VC)Heads-up Display (NOMAD) is a heads-up display that permits the squad leader to view other displays such as DVE or FBCB2. The brigade was issued 100 sets of the NOMAD, for squad leaders, however because of design problems the heads-up display was not being used in theater. NOMAD sets were issued one per platoon. The helmet bracket break away pressure was too high and could cause neck injury if it gets caught on something and doesn’t pull off. The NOMAD was too large and difficult to use inside the vehicle, especially when getting out for security and then coming in the vehicle to toggle the functions of the Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2). The NOMAD was not that useful in an urban environment since the display caused a blind spot, to the vehicle commander’s vision, while trying to pull local security. The NOMAD does work well for long movements when local security and moving in and out of the vehicle is not required as often. Overall the NOMAD should be smaller and wireless, and a toggle remote to control the FBCB2, see the driver’s view, and see the gunner’s view without moving in and out of the vehicle.[ October 28, 2005, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: JC_Hare ]
-
-
I meant that in jest, I did not see it as an argument, more of a friendly discussionOriginally posted by fytinghellfish:I'm not disagreeing with you.
I didn't know that about the AT-14's wire. In fact, I thought the AT-14 was a totally beam-riding missile. I haven't seen anything suggesting it was wire guided. Do you have a link?
Actually, I am starting to wonder about the wire-guided part. I got my information from this link:
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.Originally posted by fytinghellfish:Actually in terms of range, the AT-14 is better, with a 5000m max range. Javelin is about 2500m.
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 think the armor penetration of the AT-14 (1200mm RHA) is actually better than the Javelin (600+mm RHA), but what makes the Javelin effective is that it's got an option as a top attack weapon, so it doesn't need to penetrate too much. The AT-14 is direct attack. -
I protest on behalf of Syrian players, it's blatant discrimination in favour of U.S. weapons.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:However, the AT-14 is a very nasty missile, even though I'd say it isn't as nasty as the Javelin.
Steve
the truth about CMSF and this board ;o)
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Madmatt
p.s. Anyway, my checks are direct deposited so I do all my laughing right here at my desk! </font>