M Hofbauer

I can piss further than you.

Damn you're all just a little bit fast for me ! Arkel, I dont think that is very plausible. Ive never seen a steelpot helmet with 15mm of armor. for your idea it would be sufficient to have an I / 0 indication of can / can not penetrate at such and such range. Penetration values for small arms are highly important not only for shooting at ACs/AFVs or helmets - depending on the AP value of a given small arm it determines whether they can shoot through different qualities of cover. Like, you can take cover behind a tree log to protect you from 9mm pistol fire - but not from 7.92mm full power rifle cartridges. AP values given for penetration of armor or, better yet, for simple steel, can, to a degree (and adm,ittedly with a none too small factor of potential inaccuracy, but I am talking about tendency, in a game formula) , be transformed into penetration values for brick walls, pine wood, sandbags etc. pp. but I digress, I am getting carried away once again. all I wanted was to quickly add the following to my original post: copypaste: oh, and one more thing. I really dare not voice it. but here goes (since I'll be gone again anyhow) have you considered medics, stretcher-bearers or, at the very essential least, modeling buddy aid? I know you'll be all saying OMG-featurecreep-frickinMicromanagement/RPG etc yada yada but wait- thing is, if in a squad of 8 soldiers two get shot, there will be less than 6 left fighting immediately after the two got shot, because two to three of their healthy buddies will rush to the aid of the shot ones. that is what makes WIA and buddy aid so important for tactical considerations. The effect of wounding a soldier goes beyond taking that one soldier out of the game. Plus their buddies are willing to do most heroic things to save them. I'ld totally sufficient if buddy aid was automated into AI behavior of his comrades. Ok ... Im outta here for now *g*

Hello there, just a quick heads up ! from me, just passing by. A friend tipped me off about this BTS/ToW thing. Looks very promising. Individual soldiers, RTS, soldier monitor, campaign, RPG elements... BTS really came a long way LOL. But thats not what I am here for. Couldnt help but notice a couple of issues when looking at the screenshots. First, from these two it seems small arms AP capability is a bit off... http://www.battlefront.com/products/tow/screenshots/pages/ww2%202006-07-25%2011-59-15-31.html http://www.battlefront.com/products/tow/screenshots/pages/ww2%202006-07-25%2012-04-19-50.html If I interpret these screenshots correctly (transapplying the cc1 soldier monitor *g*) it would seem you are suggesting that a nimble Polish VIS 1935 pistol firing regular 9x19 Parabellum would penetrate 5mm, and the polish Mauser firing regular 7.92x57 ammo even 15mm of armor ? :eek: if thats the case, we can say good-bye to the concept of armored cars and vehicles below full-grown tank status. a 9x19 projectile even when fired from an MP-40 would barely dent armor of 2mm... (much less when fired from the 117-119mm barrels of a VIS 1935) and the 7.92x57 M03/M05 (8x57 JS) Mauser cartridge using the regular sS projectile would penetrate about 5mm at 100m, it would require special AP versions (like the SmK / SmK(H) projectiles) which the olish to my knowledge did not use - to get beyond 5mm/100. or am I missing something, or misreqading that soldier monitor? :confused: oh, and another thing: http://www.battlefront.com/products/tow/screenshots/pages/grab0007.html Regular Panzerfaust warheads dont leave such smoketrails. Nihil novum sub sole: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000970 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=001000 http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=001017 ergo: smoketrail should be removed, and instead the launch plume increased. Wishing you all the best for your project, looking interesting so far sincerely M.Hofbauer

politicians and journalists are about the dumbest people around. together, they make a great combination. I remember a couple of years ago there was an outrage, the Splitterbomben scandal, when a politician of the red-green government responsible for defense/military issues suddenly discovered that the German Air Force uses Mk 82 bombs... yes we are talking about the regular Mk 82 HE iron bombs, just about as plain vanilla as they can get... and that these bombs when exploding are produce fragmentation... these shrapnel bombs are to be outlawed since they are such an immensely inhumane weapon! the issue was not pursued further, apparently someone took them to the side and introduced them to the mundane nature of the MK82 series iron bombs... similar here with WP. the point is not whether or not the US uses WP or that it is certainly not a chemical weapon in an NBC sense. the point is that again the US kept denying using it at all, denying it until it was proven that (of course!) it was being used. but I dont think it hurt the US credibility or image abroad. because it is already rock bottom in the media here. but now good bye, M.H. [edit for spelling] [ November 18, 2005, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

---- unfortunately BTS closed the "skeptics" thread when indeed skeptics turned up. so I am unable to continue in that thread and reply to the attacks. I did not intend to be or see me as a "stryker basher". More like someone wishing to question and learn about something that he is not readily convinced about, also due to the nature of a contemporary vehicle which still undergoes developmental process (some might have recognized that I did concede points that I learned about). Rather I thought an ongoing discussion of this vehicle which lies at the core of CMSF would be an ideal opportunity for BTS to present the game and its protagonist the way they see it (=are going to model it). But I certainly realize when that is not wanted, and that my questions are rather seen as an unwanted annoyance. And since I do not want to spoil anyone's fun with all this, I am leaving for now - but not without a smile (see above) wishing all of you all the best for CMSF sincerely M.Hofbauer

: ok, good then. though I wonder how they eventually solved the problems.? (simple structural strengthening after the Herkybird requirement flew out the window?). you know, thats what irks me, or, rather, makes me feel somehow uncomfortable around current military technological developments. it is not only hard to grab hard facts, it is hard to even follow what's going on, to see where things are heading. in twenty years we can look back and clearly see which versions and subvariants eventually became *the* Stryker that we all know then (in twenty years), and which were simply dropped. all major programs show that - only hindsight shows which paths eventually were taken. but right now, people like me don't really know, one can't really tell what's the current state of affairs unless you are the contract worker installing thze latest stuff or the soldier sitting in one of these things at the proving ground. I knew it... I knew the pro-Sttrykeout military industrial complex was behind the combatreform page, they did that page to discredit the Shmyker critics. But when the criticism is leveled at the concept of space shuttle or a main battle tank, and how it is used, then it is a crap argument. It is akin to saying the original M16 was a piece of crap and therefore infantry units and their tactics were useless, and instead the whole army should have been armed by monkeys with rotten fruit instead.</font>

Buq-Buq/Mark, thank you for this absolute groggy vehicle ID ! commendable !

right on the money. that about sums up my take on this subject. the only hard fact w/r/t female capabilities I could come up with would be the admittance and P.T. criteria which are toned down for females, or are they not ? unless I'm mistaken and this has been changed by now it means that a debate over women's actual fitness in general is moot since the army itself expects them to be at a lower fitness level. But again, I am not up to date on this, maybe it has changed now. that may very well be true, but CM SF will only model the taking of the objectives, not the years of turmoil in Syria *after* the US invasion. pad, mantaray et al, there is a misunderstanding here, some here are caught up in a knee-jerk p.c. reaction to knightly defend the fact that women soldiers do see combat, others simply forget the context of this question. you are misunderstanding the original poster's and zmoney's point, the point of this thread. it is not about female soldiers' combat capabilities. it is not about that or how they perform in combat in iraq today. there's probably indeed a good (bad) number of females among the more than 2,000 killed (and many times more wounded) soldiers in iraq, there's no denying that they *are* in a hostile/combat environment in iraq today. they may perform better, the same, or worse than their male counterparts - that's completely beside the point: the point is the representation of women in CM SF: if women are in SBCTs and tank platoons, then they should be in, if they are not, there is no reason to include them in CM SF. simple as that. i think the occasional woman found in some attached medic or supply vehicle does not warrant the official differentiation of gender. related topic: but since we do have individual soldiers now I would however like to see some variation in individual soldiers capabilities/physique. whether or not that is because "he" is female is not of concern to me as a CM player.

especially if other Abrams were captured rather intact without such destruction, as suggested here: ...or is that Abrams actually pretty blown up but the perspective misleading? edit: to get picture right [ November 03, 2005, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

I'm not up-to-date on this ever-changing Shmyker topic, but I thought the mortar carrier can *not* fire the intended prime 120mm weapon from inside the vehicle, it has to relegate to the 81mm for that. but if they changed that, then that's okay. that combatreform page sure is far out on many things. it is heavily biased and I see it just as such; in a way one could see it as a way of fighting fire with fire: there is so much pro-Stryker propaganda spin being spouted by the politico-military-industrial complex that pages like combatreform are a counter-weight in this battle. the only victim inbetween is the truth, which indeed is *somewhere* between the two. I'm pretty sure they are on all 8 now. (...)Plus, as originally designed the vehicle could have (IIRC) 6 flat tires and still drive under its own power..</font>

Steve, I agree with you wholeheartedly - it's nice to see an american realizing that the Abrams is not the supertank that jingoists make it out to be namely: it had been pointed out in the 80ies, indeed as soon as the Abrams-design in contrast to the Leo2 became known, that this idling-issue would be acerbated by the Abrams' design using a turbine engine. it would be nothing but insult to the intelligence of US Army tankers(i.e., the people using it in everyday military service) to presume that they had not realized this and pointed to this problem. but - just the same way that I am sure that the officers and enlisted men manning these Abrams had the common sense to realize this, I am also sure that back then there had been plenty of people who had plenty of creativity of explaining this away and dismissing such critique, just the way that the emperor's new Stryker clothes are being presented as the best thing since black berets, and any issues are actually features or, at worst, the much-stressed "teething problems" (when, such as in this case, it is nothing but a full design flaw). I thought only two of the four axles, i.e., four out of the eight wheels of the Stryker are run-flat - or is my info wrong? has this been rectified by now ? :confused: (I've asked before but nobody answered my inquiry before) IMO it *is* a Stryker issue because the whole Stryker concept relies so heavily on this FOW-removal-situational-awareness-superior-intelligence-electronics-thingamajig for its mission if not for the very survival of the SBCT. btw, I also find the heavy dependency on UAV-borne surveillance and intelligence to be quite a burden/problem. UAVs don't have the survivability of manned aircraft like the A-10, an F-16 or even an Apache or Kiowa. They're actually pretty easy targets not only for sophisticated AirDefense systems but also for regular most primitive cannon-AA (ZPU-4, ZU-23, for example). Drones are maintenance-intensive and had a high loss rate even in the low-to-no-intensity missions in KFOR. come on, Steve, that's a pretty artificial and obvious example: it is a no-brainer that an isolated company of (apparently mostly stationary, btw) tanks without any infantry screen at all would be easy prey to a bunch of infantrymen being able to make full use of the advantages that footsoldiers have. however, in this example it makes no difference whether it is Strykers, Humvees or even bicycles which are parked outside the action at the far side of the woods when the infantry goes stalking the tanks. sincerely, M.Hofbauer [edit: edited for emphasis, smilies 'n stuff] [ November 02, 2005, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

if you are recreating an event that actually occurred then no it is not gamey. if you are changing what would have happened in reality only because you are playing it as a game, to illustrate, you are only sacruificing the men because you know that it is just a game, then it is gamey. same as hitherto re. edge-creeping et al. the best way to "prevent"* it is to carefully choose who you play with. *btw who says you should prevent it? if both sides have the same attitude of "everything goes, this is a game after all, so lets take it as that", then they can have fun and there is nothing per se bad about gameyness. it is only important that both sides are in agreement over what style to play. otherwise they will be frustrated.

but what about the cheese and the tulips? dont worry, though: the whole reason why the LAV series is so oddly built is because it is designed to be amphibious... oh, no, wait....they somehow dropped that in the Stryker process... oh well nevermind...lets get back to the tulips...Ive heard there are good prices on (tulip) onions and cheese ... but not in syria...

was going to but the site requires registration. what ever happened to the scenario depot ?

yes, especially if they will be simulating the clever syrians flooding all their deserts with water.

true. both have ballistic missiles, and Israel got *da bomb*, wait a while and iran has it, too. maybe they can borrow one or two from the pakistanis, too. however, you are leaving CMSF out of the equation. in the world after CMSF: israel is in on the deal to attack syria. let's say israel gets syria. the US forces for CMSF will be drained from iraq. iraq is, for a small moment, left to itself and all civil war breaks loose until the iranians step in and take over. iran gets iraq. voila they share a common border and can now comfortably kill each other both conventional and non-conventional. all this under miss president h. clinton.

russophile, I don't know how you came to your conclusion that there were no company-sized organized surrenders and that soldiers were intentionally not instructed about surrenders. I think you are wrong but I am too lazy to dredge out my books to cite concrete examples. Even then, the Wehrmacht obviously instructed both in the handling of enemy prisoners and own capture. John_d, your point about pixel wives and kids is not the only aspect. it is also a question of gameyness vs. simulation. your statements seem pretty gamey to me: if the company is lost anyhow, maybe they would surrender in reality because it is so futile and only a massacre, but in the game, hey, maybe I can kill even one enemy soldier while the company gets massacred - doesnt matter because for me they are gone anyhow. its like edge-creeping, jeep-rushing, using crews as scouts/bait or taking other conscious advantages of weaknesses in the modeling of certain vehicles or game functions. dont get me wrong - I am not saying that it is an ethically bad thing. it is just a different style of playing, and it *is* a game after all. but some people prefer it to be more of a simulation of real world situations. lastly, I find the idea of the handling of POWs highly intriguing, too. I am also highlyinterested in how the breakthrough of armor into the soft rear-area innerds will be modeled. and generally the whole CMC. let's just say I am rather excited and very much looking forward to CMC.

the funky chicken of joy is in order.

havent seen the movie (56k here), but indeed the Fennek is a light reconnaisance vehicle of german design used by the dutch and the germans. because german AFVs always get animal names, Fennek is an appropriate name IMO. Why you bring this up here I don't know - I see no connection to CMSF beyond the fact that "Fenek" is originally an arab word (methinks). It's the same as saying "I want the Wiesel, I want the Wiesel!!"

your intel got that mixed up. norwegians are not *using* killing whales, the norwegians *are* killing whales. btw, this year, for the first time, they are also not only clubbing seals to death but they are now also offering it as a holiday hunting package for international tourists. I am not making this up. so the swewdish and the finns (especially the finner whales) are probably right to fear the norwegians... I would fear the army of any country that thinks killing seals must be such an enjoyable pastime that holiday travelers from all over the world will flock there in droves for it.

...no, the grass ! ...still having tears in my eyes from laughter...Corvidae, I wholeheartedly sympathize with you, but beyond that I have no idea what that was... maybe the answer lies in your sig statements...both of them...

great site indeed. in a PRAWDAesque kinda way.

I thought only two of the four axles were equipped with runflat-tires. :confused: which was one of the issues with the heavy MGS - two axles just aint enough for the MGS's weight.