Sgt Joch

Short answer, no. Tom Cooper had an interesting write up on this. The F-16/AIM120 combo is out ranged by the SU35/MIG31/R37 combo.
You also have to remember the F16 Ukraine is getting are upgraded A models which while competent are not as deadly as the latest models in the U.S. inventory.
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/its-the-range-stupid-part-1?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Way too much emphasis has been placed on the F16 and aircraft in general. One important feature of this war is the way in which SAMs dominate the air battlefield and shape all air operations. Both Ukrainian and Russian air forces are very skittish about  coming into range of the other sides SAMs since that is almost guaranteed death.
More Patriot batteries would be a lot more useful to Ukraine than 40 year old F16s.

Short answer, no. Tom Cooper had an interesting write up on this. The F-16/AIM120 combo is out ranged by the SU35/MIG31/R37 combo.
You also have to remember the F16 Ukraine is getting are upgraded A models which while competent are not as deadly as the latest models in the U.S. inventory.
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/its-the-range-stupid-part-1?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Way too much emphasis has been placed on the F16 and aircraft in general. One important feature of this war is the way in which SAMs dominate the air battlefield and shape all air operations. Both Ukrainian and Russian air forces are very skittish about  coming into range of the other sides SAMs since that is almost guaranteed death.
More Patriot batteries would be a lot more useful to Ukraine than 40 year old F16s.

Well any private U.S. citizen who conspires to kill or maim citizens of a foreign country with whom the U.S. is at peace (i.e. Russia and which would include Russian soldiers in Ukraine)is guilty of a criminal offence and is passible of a sentence of up to life under the U.S. neutrality act. I presume other countries have similar laws.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/956
Now if anyone actually wants to fight for Ukraine, the answer is simple, move to Ukraine and volunteer to serve in their army. A lot of foreigners have already done the same thing. 🙂
https://ildu.com.ua

Well any private U.S. citizen who conspires to kill or maim citizens of a foreign country with whom the U.S. is at peace (i.e. Russia and which would include Russian soldiers in Ukraine)is guilty of a criminal offence and is passible of a sentence of up to life under the U.S. neutrality act. I presume other countries have similar laws.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/956
Now if anyone actually wants to fight for Ukraine, the answer is simple, move to Ukraine and volunteer to serve in their army. A lot of foreigners have already done the same thing. 🙂
https://ildu.com.ua

Well any private U.S. citizen who conspires to kill or maim citizens of a foreign country with whom the U.S. is at peace (i.e. Russia and which would include Russian soldiers in Ukraine)is guilty of a criminal offence and is passible of a sentence of up to life under the U.S. neutrality act. I presume other countries have similar laws.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/956
Now if anyone actually wants to fight for Ukraine, the answer is simple, move to Ukraine and volunteer to serve in their army. A lot of foreigners have already done the same thing. 🙂
https://ildu.com.ua

Well any private U.S. citizen who conspires to kill or maim citizens of a foreign country with whom the U.S. is at peace (i.e. Russia and which would include Russian soldiers in Ukraine)is guilty of a criminal offence and is passible of a sentence of up to life under the U.S. neutrality act. I presume other countries have similar laws.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/956
Now if anyone actually wants to fight for Ukraine, the answer is simple, move to Ukraine and volunteer to serve in their army. A lot of foreigners have already done the same thing. 🙂
https://ildu.com.ua

Well any private U.S. citizen who conspires to kill or maim citizens of a foreign country with whom the U.S. is at peace (i.e. Russia and which would include Russian soldiers in Ukraine)is guilty of a criminal offence and is passible of a sentence of up to life under the U.S. neutrality act. I presume other countries have similar laws.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/956
Now if anyone actually wants to fight for Ukraine, the answer is simple, move to Ukraine and volunteer to serve in their army. A lot of foreigners have already done the same thing. 🙂
https://ildu.com.ua

Well any private U.S. citizen who conspires to kill or maim citizens of a foreign country with whom the U.S. is at peace (i.e. Russia and which would include Russian soldiers in Ukraine)is guilty of a criminal offence and is passible of a sentence of up to life under the U.S. neutrality act. I presume other countries have similar laws.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/956
Now if anyone actually wants to fight for Ukraine, the answer is simple, move to Ukraine and volunteer to serve in their army. A lot of foreigners have already done the same thing. 🙂
https://ildu.com.ua

I am not sure from which European country you are. I live in Germany, though I am half Polish and half Swedish. 
Here in Germany the rethoric against Ukrainian refugees was subdued only for the first few weeks and honestly, that was mostly because they were not Muslim or brown. 
But there is now widespread antipathy against Ukrainian refugees as well, perfectly covered with the two Russia-aligned parties (the neo-nazi-esque AfD (21%) and the new and much smaller naz-bol BSW). To the point that mobs appeared in front of homes of Ukrainian refugees, chanting for them to get out, and threatening to set fire to the buildings.
Similarly the weapon deliveries are hugely controversial.
There are those who recognize this war for what it is and support continued and growing weapon sales, donations and deliveries.
There are those who recognize that Russia did a bad, but surely just accidentally, and while some rifles and small-arms ammo is okay, it is more important to get back on good terms again with the peace-loving and unfairly maligned Russians (who defeated Hitler and brought prosperity to Eastern Europe etc.).
And then we have the third group, who actively wants "Peace Deal Yesterday" in order to "save Ukrainian lives from the CIA proxy war" or to stop supporting the "Kiyv Nazi regime." 
These three groups are roughly equally sized, but the latter tends to be the loudest and most aggressive, and is obviously also getting some ruble deals or help by bot farms. This is affecting politics - it does not dominate it. But it is affecting it. 
 

The big difference between WW2 and now is that in 1942, the U.S. public realized beating Germany and Japan was not a given and were willing to make the personal sacrifices necessary to win the war including rationing, higher taxes and seeing their boys, brothers, friends go to war and possibly be killed or maimed.
Now, most western citizens will "support" Ukraine, but only as long as it does not cost anything: no inflation, higher taxes, restrictions on consumer goods and god forbid, losing a single service man/woman/non-binary/whatever. That makes it very hard for western politicians who are forever on the tightrope of trying to provide support while trying to argue the support actually does not cost anything.

The big difference between WW2 and now is that in 1942, the U.S. public realized beating Germany and Japan was not a given and were willing to make the personal sacrifices necessary to win the war including rationing, higher taxes and seeing their boys, brothers, friends go to war and possibly be killed or maimed.
Now, most western citizens will "support" Ukraine, but only as long as it does not cost anything: no inflation, higher taxes, restrictions on consumer goods and god forbid, losing a single service man/woman/non-binary/whatever. That makes it very hard for western politicians who are forever on the tightrope of trying to provide support while trying to argue the support actually does not cost anything.

The big difference between WW2 and now is that in 1942, the U.S. public realized beating Germany and Japan was not a given and were willing to make the personal sacrifices necessary to win the war including rationing, higher taxes and seeing their boys, brothers, friends go to war and possibly be killed or maimed.
Now, most western citizens will "support" Ukraine, but only as long as it does not cost anything: no inflation, higher taxes, restrictions on consumer goods and god forbid, losing a single service man/woman/non-binary/whatever. That makes it very hard for western politicians who are forever on the tightrope of trying to provide support while trying to argue the support actually does not cost anything.

Yes. Absolutely. The 'feedback' I got from watching that was incredibly helpful. I was actually embarrassed when he flunked the Scottish Corridor mission and went onto the Green path. That will definitely influence the remake. I want people to be able to win if they devise a good plan.
I have a hope that one day he'll do The Khabour Trail, the Canadian campaign I made for the CMSF NATO module (the first one). That's the campaign I'm most proud of.
I had a look at the revision that was made for CMSF2 and it looks almost identical with very little changed (probably because of the way I do the AI in my campaigns. It must have freaked them out when they realised they'd either have to do it all from scratch or try to fathom out how to update that so it still is pretty much my baby.

The thought did cross my mind briefly a while ago though. If they did want it as an extra, I'd be very happy for that to happen but I'm not pushing for it. It needs both the Market Garden and Vehicle Pack content to play so I can understand why that might not be appealing for them. 
The same will go for the revision of the Scottish Corridor that will come along some time in the future - it's going to need Market Garden and the Vehicle pack to work. I REALLY want a flamethrower tank or two in one or two of these missions as they were present in the real operation and there's no way that I'm redoing it without one. (Or at least trying it to see if it's as cool as I think it will be. I suspect it will completely destroy any existing balance in these missions but I want to try.)
 
Watching Hapless's Montebourg and Scottish Corridor series is what got me back into this. He did a really good job with his AARs - very professional. My wife was astonished when I pointed out to her that I made the series he was playing.

https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cm-battle-for-normandy-campaigns/the-road-to-montebourg-revised-for-v4-0/
Don't worry, this won't overwrite or otherwise delete the original campaign that came on the disk. IIt's a completely different file. This is substantially different from the vanilla campaign and the number of changes made is huge but the most important one to note is that you will need both the Market Garden module and the Vehicle Pack to play this.
 
Other important highlights are that the 2/8 INF core units are now mostly Green with High morale which means you'll need to manage them more carefully in a firefight.
All-new AI plans using triggers and most of the tricks that came with later versions of the game.
Flamethrowers are included in some missions.
Some maps have been revised, most notably the map for Turnbull's Stand which veterans of the original campaign will probably notice quite quickly.
A 'new' mission has been added although those of you who found and played the earlier revised version that was uploaded to BFC's old Scenario Depot will recognise it. The campaign has a prelude phase consisting of the new mission and then the old campaign opener Beau Guillot. You should notice quite a few changes made to that mission as well - some extra help to make up for the drop in experience.
There is air support in quite a few missions now and less artillery, at least the bigger guns anyway.
 
Anyway, let's post this and then I'll see what needs to be 'fixed' or not in good time. This is an old campaign so i'm not expecting a ton of feedback for it for quite a while but let me know and I'll fix things. Now I'm taking a break from CMBN. I haven't quite decided what comes next - finishing Hasrabit or a new version of Gung Ho! for the German forces. Later, I'll get to work on the two Scottish campaigns I'd mentioned elswhere.
 
Have a Happy New year.

So, two things here:
1) we - the collective we - don't have any skin in this game. If we get it right; yay us. If we get it wrong; oh well, no harm, no foul.^ We can happily look back and say "see - we were right" while ignoring all the times we were wrong, and we also don't have to make meaningful decisions while peering forward into the murky future.
2) There have been a LOT of assertions and opinions and statements of 'fact' in this thread. I'm pretty sure if you went back and tallied them all up then the overall strike rate would look about as good as War On The Rocks. There definitely is a 'wisdom of the crowds' thing working in our favour here, but that masks a lot of outliers and outlandish stuff needed to get to that point.
 
To give a spectacular example: We said; "lol, silly Russians. Why are they bothering to dig in?"
 
^ Some individuals in this thread obviously do have a LOT of skin in this.

This is pretty much correct, except that it’s a tad insulting to the “Grease Monkies,” and there is a more nuanced difference. I can’t speak to Army or AirForce manuals and maintene “levels,” but in Navy/Marine Corps Aviation, we had “Flightline,” Internediate,” and “Depot” level maintenance. The basic mechanical training for all levels was done in the same training school classes. When you finished your training, you were assigned to either a Squadron (Flightline), a Headquarters & Maintenance Facility (HAMS) Facility, or a Naval Air Rework Facility (NARF), you would receive some additional training for each, but you wouldn’t receive “a bigger hammer!” It all depended on the tooling available to you. In fact, the NARF  was considered to be equivalent to the original Factory that built the engine or the airframe. When I was writing procedures for the engines on the F/A- 18A/B, we wrote for Line, Intermediate, and Depot Manuals in the same office and frequently moved from one team to another depending on need. Our most driving factor was the Navy requirement that the procedures be written at a reading comprehensive level of 9th grade or lower (for folks not familiar with U.S. education, High School, our secondary school, started at 10th grade). That was in 1985 though and might be down to 6th grade by now. In fact, the Army at that time sent out Line Maintenance instructions for armor and helicopter turbine engines in comic book form.

sanctions can be effective IF properly applied.
WW2 is not a good example, increased German production was a bit of an illusion. As Tooze pointed out, it was achieved in part by a reallocation of production, i.e. fighter AC and AFVs at the expense of other stuff and general lowering of quality, i.e. partly completed ACs booked as produced and general shoddiness. Speer "cooked the books" to make it appear as though production was increasing much faster than it actually was.
The current problem is that the sanctions against Russia are also a bit of an illusion. EU, US, Canada and a few other countries have sanctions in place, but most of the world, including major economies like China and India have no sanctions in place, so even though in theory U.S. technology cannot be supplied to Russia, there are many ways it can get there indirectly/illegally, no matter what parties are saying. For example, China has officially said it would "respect" U.S. sanctions, but you have increasing anecdotal evidence that Chinese made parts are appearing in Russian weapons.

sanctions can be effective IF properly applied.
WW2 is not a good example, increased German production was a bit of an illusion. As Tooze pointed out, it was achieved in part by a reallocation of production, i.e. fighter AC and AFVs at the expense of other stuff and general lowering of quality, i.e. partly completed ACs booked as produced and general shoddiness. Speer "cooked the books" to make it appear as though production was increasing much faster than it actually was.
The current problem is that the sanctions against Russia are also a bit of an illusion. EU, US, Canada and a few other countries have sanctions in place, but most of the world, including major economies like China and India have no sanctions in place, so even though in theory U.S. technology cannot be supplied to Russia, there are many ways it can get there indirectly/illegally, no matter what parties are saying. For example, China has officially said it would "respect" U.S. sanctions, but you have increasing anecdotal evidence that Chinese made parts are appearing in Russian weapons.

sanctions can be effective IF properly applied.
WW2 is not a good example, increased German production was a bit of an illusion. As Tooze pointed out, it was achieved in part by a reallocation of production, i.e. fighter AC and AFVs at the expense of other stuff and general lowering of quality, i.e. partly completed ACs booked as produced and general shoddiness. Speer "cooked the books" to make it appear as though production was increasing much faster than it actually was.
The current problem is that the sanctions against Russia are also a bit of an illusion. EU, US, Canada and a few other countries have sanctions in place, but most of the world, including major economies like China and India have no sanctions in place, so even though in theory U.S. technology cannot be supplied to Russia, there are many ways it can get there indirectly/illegally, no matter what parties are saying. For example, China has officially said it would "respect" U.S. sanctions, but you have increasing anecdotal evidence that Chinese made parts are appearing in Russian weapons.

You have clearly never lived in Canada.  

Well if you want to simplify things to the extreme:
-Ukraine can fight the war how it wants if it wants to do it without western support; or
-Ukraine has to adhere to certain basic rules if it wants western support.
Remember there are two objectives as far as the West is concerned: 1) helping Ukraine to defend itself; and 2) preventing this regional conflict from spinning into WW3. I would argue goal 2 is more important than goal 1 to the West.

Well if you want to simplify things to the extreme:
-Ukraine can fight the war how it wants if it wants to do it without western support; or
-Ukraine has to adhere to certain basic rules if it wants western support.
Remember there are two objectives as far as the West is concerned: 1) helping Ukraine to defend itself; and 2) preventing this regional conflict from spinning into WW3. I would argue goal 2 is more important than goal 1 to the West.

Well if you want to simplify things to the extreme:
-Ukraine can fight the war how it wants if it wants to do it without western support; or
-Ukraine has to adhere to certain basic rules if it wants western support.
Remember there are two objectives as far as the West is concerned: 1) helping Ukraine to defend itself; and 2) preventing this regional conflict from spinning into WW3. I would argue goal 2 is more important than goal 1 to the West.

I seem to recall that "they may be bastards, but they're our bastards" didn't work out so great last time.