Trooper

Sure, if it were banished there, it would provide much less enjoyment. NTM

Dude, you're a couple of pages too late for that... I see the residents of this board have suffered an encounter before? NTM

Can you expand upon this one, please? It's a perfectly valid technique, I use it often in CCTT. It provides both a visual and physical shield. NTM

What if you won? NTM

In fairness, Gib's got point. I agree with him in the inherent futility of trying to mod something which is drastically different. This is why I do not, and never will, use your British Steel Beasts skins. If it floats your boat, fine, but there is more than a slight difference in the mechanics between Leo2A5 and Challenger 2 and as such can never represent the British Army, just the Danish/Swedish/Whatever army painted up funny. It should not be taken as any more than that. This isn't helped by the OP's inability to distinguish an ASLAV from a Bushmaster. (Just to make Gib feel even more comfortable, I've never seen an Aussie vehicle in an American TCGST!), which is pretty much like not being able to distinguish between a Stryker and a HMMWV. You'll get as much similarity at this rate with real life as you would if you attempted to simulate a US Light Recon Squadron with 48 Strykers: The numbers of troops would be wrong, the equipment would be wrong, the capabilities would be wrong, and the tactics would be wrong. You don't have an LRS, you have a random accumulation of Strykers and troops who happen to wear the same uniform. Even the ASLAV-PCs and Strykers, though similar in outward appearance, are so much different in capability that you won't be close to simulating Aussies, you'll be simulating Strykers painted up as such. Heck, I don't even know if the Aussie Army uses the fire-team concept or the fire-support-group concept at the section level. In which case, even the infantry squad/section would be vastly difference in technique and capability. Hell, why not just paint iron crosses on the Strykers and pretend they're Sdkfz-234s, and paint the infantry in Feldgrau colours. As a result, I can understand why Gib would have an objection to anything claiming to be a representation of the ADF, even 'At user's own risk', if you know what I mean. It would be such a non-approximation of the Australian forces that I can understand why someone who is proud of it would take not just objection, but also offence at the utter mischaracterisation of his organisation. And that's before you get to this bit: Fortunately, Rob Carpenter's a very switched-on lad, and he might know that the mod is just what you guys intend it to be, but not everyone in the procurement chain is as savvy. Imagine if some Armour LTC in charge of sim procurement is evaluating CM-SF, sees a link saying "Hey, with this we can simulate our Army", downloads it, and then concludes "Dear God, this is a crap simulation of the Aussies. I have no idea why we should buy this" NTM [ December 27, 2007, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Trooper ]

Considering how much ammo my blue guys have been sending at each other at ranges where the target can speak softly "You idiot, I'm in your platoon", it's probably for the best that they can't hit each other. NTM

I beg to differ. I had an M1114 for several months in Iraq, I'm fairly sure I'd have noticed smoke launchers if it had them. (Mine) (Not mine) (Also not mine) NTM

Treadhead here. Short of reinforced concrete, I'd be hard-pressed to think of a wall which I couldn't knock down with my tank. I've even slammed right into a concrete Jersey Barrier at high warp factors once. Took the guard off my headlight, but no damage otherwise. Even if you're not inclined to ram the wall at full speed, just nose up to it, put it in low gear, and away you go. Yes, throwing track sucks, as does getting barbed wire caught in your sprocket wheels, but if you're perpetually in fear of it, you're probably not aggressive enough. NTM

Just finished it myself, with almost identical results. Took the airfield HQ first, but never noticed a popup saying "Objective taken". So I ended up sending troops to walk every floor of every 'block' of the building. Registered in the AAR as taken, but a more noticeable visual indicator would be nice. (Or a 'victory status' screen). Then took the barracks, as soon as I hit the centre building, I got the "Objective taken" message. Hmm.. So off to SFHQ. Captured it, walked into every 'block', but no message. Figured it might have been like the airfield HQ, so I pulled back, and blew half of it up. (Centre block to the ground, and two next to it). Ended up a minor defeat, and the SFHQ did not register as completed. NTM

OK.. probably a simple fix, but I've been out of the IT industry too long... One machine XP, one Win2K Pro. Using a crossover cable, all the appropriate link lights flash. TCP is obviously required to play TCP multiplayer, and we have to manually assign IP addresses since obviously we've no IP server. Alas, we seem to have hit a bit of a snag that the two machines aren't pinging away at each other. We've put in the same subnet mask for both machines, and each has a manual IP address. Gateway is left blank since there's no Internet to gate to. Not gone anywhere near DNS or Advanced Settings... Anyone have any ideas? NTM

forgot to mention, the OS is 9.22 Yes, it's the same subnet mask, yes, it's the same subnet. The gateway is fine, all machines can talk to it, and the IP addresses were assigned by the ISP, but they are static. NTM

This one rather has us stumped. We've just hooked up a buddy's Mac to the home network. It consists of a cable modem, a hub, two PCs and the Mac. It's a static IP system. One PC isn't used by a CMBO player, not a worry.. All machines can browse the Internet through the modem. All machines can ping each other. Attempts to either join or host a TCP game by the Mac result in a message along the lines of 'could not connect to TCP network'. I say again, this is for either join or host, it's not a case that it can't find the other machine, just CMBO simply can't talk to the network. We know the Mac itself can. Any guesses? NTM

I think part of the reason that moderns are a little less popular (I speak more as a miniatures gamer than PC), is because of the omnipotence of equipment. "Oh look. There's a target vehicle 3km that way." 30 second later, it's dead due to a TOW or M829 or something. Even in naval games, it takes some of the fun out of it. "OK. My E-2 Hawkeye has just illuminated the entire game board..." On initial sight, it may appear that tactics take second-seat to equipment in modern era games. Of course, it's not true, but the catch is that it appears that way. NTM

I'm going to have to wait a couple months before signing on for this one, I think. I ship out for a couple of fun-filled (and probably painful) months at OCS starting in two weeks. NTM

If memory serves, there were two M1s knocked out by enemy fire. One was the T-72 you mentioned, the other was a BMP which got a shot into the engine. Only one Abrams tanker was killed in combat, it was a TC who was unbuttoned when he directed a HEAT round into a BMP at about 20 meters. On the mathematics front, go to http://www.tank-net.org and go to the Armour Scientific Forum. I almost never go in there, it's far too technical for me.. NTM [ May 31, 2002, 04:22 AM: Message edited by: Trooper ]

Another possibility which I am trying out now and seems to be working is that I'm trying to time an ambush on an enemy vehicle which is coming along a road. By hiding, and thus idling my engines, I am picking up the noise of the enemy tank quite nicely. NTM

On the spring issue, theoretically, the weapon only ever needed to be cocked for the first round, much like a self-loading rifle/pistol. However, the problem was that the spring was so strong that the PIAT had to be braced very solidly indeed. (Think against a wall or something!) otherwise the person firing the weapon would be pushed back by the recoil as well. Not enough to cause him to fall over or anything, but enough that the spring wouldn't push back far enough to recock. This is why frequently you will see reference to troops having to recock after every shot.. they just weren't built strong enough to take the force. NTM

Just for the record, they're actually mortars, the spring is simply used to detonate the charge. However, the net effect is the same. No backblast. NTM

Look at the unit description in the bottom left. It's a 'tentative spot', the picture of the TD is just a representation of 'tank destroyer', and the gun is indeed facing backwards. Yes, I think that a turn or two later, they are going to be positively ID'd as Archers. NTM

The first thing that came to mind for me was 'Rotatrailer', but of course, there was no place for a crewman in a rotatrailer. (British thingie, drag a huge fuel drum behind your tank sort of yoke) NTM

Short answer, yes, it's TacOps Cav. 16th Cav in Ft Knox have it, it's available for all Dept. of the Army Employees or something like that, to include NG and AR. I'm sure Major H will turn up with exact instructions on how to grab hold of it shortly. NTM

1) Well, they have an interesting one these days called Bunkerfaust... Not much use in WWII though. 2) There was an interesting one called the Mantis. It was a machinegun on an elevating platform, could raise up to about 12 feet from the ground at least to shoot over low buildings, walls, and whatnot. 3) I take it the Brencarrier with the Boys ATR won't count? Would have been mildly useful in the early war though, against all those MkIs and MkIIs NTM

Actually, the first tank I ever buy when playing American is the Sherman 105. I've had one in Elsfdorf take out two Tigers and a King Tiger against a human opponent, and the effect it has against infantry (which, face it, is the most common target you have to deal with) beats the heck out of the 75mm. Similarly, I rarely play a game as German without a StuH42 or two. I am also as likely to get a MkIVG or Marder over the Hetzer. The Hetzer's slow ROF and lack of ammo can be debilitating. On the Jagdpanther/Pershing item, a little annecdote: One game I was playing, I decided to take a Jagdpanther simply because I had never used one before and wanted to see how it did. (If I want an 88, I'll take a Tiger for the turret, or the Nashorn on points). By coincidence, my opponent also decided to do a little experimenting. He bought his first ever Pershing. By complete luck, we both placed our respective experiments on the same flank, which had fairly long fields of fire. I think we engaged at about 600m. Game starts, and my Panther gets the first salvo off. The second shot is a ricochet, and causes the Pershing to button up. I get a further four shots off before he spots me and turns to engage. All shots ricoched off the hull and turret. His first shot kills my Jagdpanther just as it gets a final shot off. The 88mm shell actually manages to kill the Pershing. We both decided we were never going to get these wastes of points ever again! NTM

The Abrams has been tried out with the MTU diesel in the place of the turbine for export purposes for quite some time. It seems to work. This is as opposed to the M1/M60 combination. K1 is not just an Abrams with a diesel. In fact, it's a fairly much a different tank entirely, though at first sight it looks kindof like a toy IPM1. Call it a family resemblence since it's from the same stable. An interesting comparison can be had by playing that most excellent of tank sims 'Steel Beasts'. Personally, I find the Leo2A4 to be superior to the Abrams by virtue of the fact that I will almost invariably get the first shot off (The Leo's computer will distinguish between shooter-induced motion and target-induced motion, dropping about a second off the engagement time). The dual-axis stabilisation on the Leo's sight as opposed to the single-axis stabilisation on the M1A1 also makes the Leo's system more user friendly. (M1A2's sight is dual-axis stabilised, I'm told). The Abrams system is a little more forgiving at long range though. For starters, Leo2 will not permit a shot at over 4km. Period. Also, the way the Abrams calculates lead on an average over one and a half seconds makes it much more forgiving of tracking accuracy over long ranges than the leo's instantaneous computations. As for best tank going, I'd rather be fighting in a Challenger 2. NTM [ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: Trooper ]</p>

Perhaps it's an example of quantity having a quality all of its own. It worked for the Chinese in Korea. If you're outnumbered five to one, and there's five times as much lead flying towards you as you're sending at them, I might submit that the thought that 'something's going to hit eventually' might just cross your mind, especially when you're low on ammo... NTM