civdiv
-
Posts
664 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by civdiv
-
-
In real life a soldier prone in the middle of a stone building CAN be killed by someone firing from 150m. Sure, the chances are low but it CAN happen. Ricochete, or even a direct shot with the firer having a height advantage down, say, a hallway. The only issue is the frequency that it happens. If it happens 10% of the time we can argue over whether it is an issue. If it happens 50% of the time then we probably have a problem. If it happens 1% of the time then it isn't an issue.Originally posted by Wiggum:In real life a prone soldier in the middle of a building (stone) cant be killed from small arms fire from 150m...in CMSF, watch your guys die.
10:1 is no problem with the US..
Now you have 50 KIA Red's and 5 KIA US but think, "in real life it will be ~20 KIA to 1 but the game issues made me (and the enemy ! ) loose so much."
But how was the target spotted in the first place? If it is spotted because it was firing than obviously it has LOS on someone. Or is another enemy closer than 150 meters? How do you know this other unit didn't kill the target, how do you know it was the firer 150 meters away?
-
Thats it !Originally posted by Wiggum:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The game doesn't seem to replicate a human's ability to make himself small and get out of the way of fire.
That is what i mean...
@ civdiv
You can not use "real tactics" because you must adapt your tactics to the Gameplay of CMSF.
If you play US, it is easy to destroy everything...you have great Air and Artillerie power, you can use javalins and get ammo from the Strykers.
But play Red vs. Red or US Infantery only (no Support) and all is different.
</font>
-
I am like 20 turns into an urban battle against the AI (My first try at the game) and I cannot disagree with you more. I have an approximatly 10-1 kill ratio at normal level (whatever the middle difficulty is). Use real tactics! Find the enemy, back-up as appropriate, hammer the location with .50 cal and Mk-19s from the Strykers, or with Javelins, and then move back in and take the given building down.Originally posted by Wiggum:MOUT and Urban Warfare at all(Trench fighting) is nearly unplayable. You can win but look at the casulties and you see that it dident work...
- The Soldiers die to fast. When they are "Green" they will die so fast you cant count it. They need better cover !!
- Small Arms accuracy is to hight !
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003438
- Door to Door fighting and close combat dont work they die thats all. In CMx1 you hera the beating and see how handgranates get less but in CMSF it is just "last man standing"
1.05 was a improvement but not the big deal.
My englisch is not good so i cant write a roman.
But i hope someone has the same oppinion like me.
Gruß Wiggum
I had one face-to-face standoff with about 12 enemy left on the second floor of a building and I sent a squad into clear the building before I had spotted the enemy. I quickly lost two guys from the squad, backed up the squad into the street, occupied the adjacent buildings with more troops, hammered the second floor with just .50 cal area fire, nailed about half the enemy remaining mostly from the adjacent infantry in surrounding and attached buildings, and then rolled in with a fresh squad and killed the remaining 5 or 6 guys in the building in Close Quarters Battle.
If you get some fire on them they pin and cower just as if they are an MG-42 in CMx1 in an improved position, and then you roll in at close range and kill them.
I'd like to see the option of throwing in a demo charge from the doorway on the street to level the building, but is that not an option?
Find them, fix them with fire from multiple angles, inflict some casulaties, and then mop them up. Use the buildings to leapfrog through the urban areas, stop and hammer the enemy when you face opposition, rinse, repeat. Use overwatch where you push a unit forward covered with additional squads and MG teams. The moving unit may take a few casualties when crossing a street in preparation of assaulting the next building, but when they take fire numerous units in overwatch will open up and quickly suppress the firers.
-
I would make the case that probably 95% of the time when they get out of their vehicle they don't even bring the tripod with them, especially in a MOUT environment. Tripods are for firing from improved positions, not running around in a city. There are so few places you can set-up a tripod, plus it's a bitch to carry around (add in the pintle and the T&E), and it get hung up on everything. Leave it in the Stryker, you can call them up or go back and get it if you need it.
-
No, there are at least two of them. You can hear when they are screaming 'allah ahkbar' that there are at least two, and at the end you see at least two bodies.Originally posted by Adam1:And oldie but a good one - they're looking for just one guy in the house?
Room clearing when you have lost the element of suprise is just plain no fun.
Hey, when they finally get out of the house and are hauling ass does one Marine (the guy directly in front of the cameraman) discharge his weapon into the ground when he runs off the porch?
-
-
I am not sure but part of this may be a simplification of the movement to cut down on cpu cycles. There may be some 'bounding' going on that is not animated. By bounding I mean a guy runs a few steps, stops, takes a couple of shots, and then starts running again.Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:Sorry, clarification: people firing while on the move, not people firing at moving targets. There was an example where a fire team on the move hosed a group of reds at 300m, IIRC.
I don't think that invalidates any of your points, just more food for thought I think.
The reality is that even the best trained rifleman is not going to hit a man-sized target at more than maybe 50 meters. I mean even in some of the more 'high speed' shooting courses I have gone through I cannot ever remember shooting on the move at more than maybe 25 meters (It may have been 50, can't be sure.). I will tell you that when you practice it a bit you can get to the point where you can hit a man-sized target around 90% of the time when moving at 25, with a probably drop off to maybe 50% at 50 meters. But that is an upright target simulating a man kneeling. And that isn't full-out running, that is sort of a heel-toe shuffle.
But hitting a man-sized target 300 meters in the open while moving? A whole squad firing a whole magazine might hit one guy. That's around 300 rounds. Against a dug-in target? You be mistaken to even open up on them and not only attract their attention, but to let them know they were spotted.
-
So you got the skin of the Aimpoint w/what looks like a DBal (Looks too long to be a PEQ or PAQ), what about EOTech or ACOG? And can you have an infantry squad with different skins like some with EOTechs and some with Aimpoints, or will every soldier end up with the same skin?
-
Shiite! Well, shows what I know about modding. You could still do a bunch of the conflicts that I mentioned but yeah, that does limit them a bit.
I wonder if when they get to the end of the CMSF modules, before they move the series into WWII, if they would at least publish the data sets for say, all vehicles and weapon systems from say, 1967 to the present. Yes, it would be a semi-big job but not nearly as tough as skinning all of the various 'stuff'. I would assume you could just spreadsheet the data and have it dumped into existing skeletons when you are done. I mean a T-72 skeleton is a T-72 skeleton regardless of which of the 100 or so versions it is. And then let the modding community build the skins. Think about the versatility of the game series when you can simulate any conflict for the last 40 years!?!?
Shoot, with 50 or so weapon and vehicle data sets added after the modules you could still do about a 90% authenticity on all of the conflicts I mentioned.
-
So "modding any of the data that makes up the games" includes vehicle attributes? Is that what that means? So you can't dumb a M1A2-SEP into a plain ol' M1, and then apply an M1 skin?Originally posted by Dogface:BattleFront has always allowed and encouraged modifying the visual appearance of their games. They have never allowed modding any of the data that makes up the games.
I know you can do the latter (re-skin the vehicle), are you saying you can't do the former (change the vehicle attributes)?
-
...or spank me if this has been brought up before. Once all the goodies are in the game via the add-on modules (EU and Marine forces), the full Syrian OOB with possible stuff like maybe T-80 or T-90 series, just think of how many conflicts you will be able to model. I mean, based on my understanding of the way the game works, once you have a skin of say, a T-72, you can change the attributes all you want, right? I mean, you could make a plain Jane T-72 unupgraded since the day it left the factory in say 1974, all the way up to the best Czech/Italian/Israeli/Russian/Ukrainian upgraded T-72 out there, right? I don't think you can build from scratch a new unit, but you can modify anything that is present, right?
But off the top of my head you could model the following conflicts;
1. India vs Pakistan
2. USSR versus Afghan rebels
3. US/EU, etc, versus Iran
4. Paki military versus AQ/Taliban
5. Current US/EU operations in Afghanistan
6. Somolia (now or back to 1992-95)
7. Eritrea vs Ethiopia
8. The old Yemenise Civil War
9. Libya vs Chad
10. An invasion of Cuba by the US?
11. Egypt vs Libya
I'm sure there are a bunch more I am forgetting.
Sure, there would have to be tweaks here and there like giving the Red Forces air support for some of the conflicts. If you threw in just a few vehicles like Merkavas, M-60 and M-48 tanks and Chieftans and Centurians you could do current and past Arab-Israeli conflicts, Iraq vs Iran, etc. Shoot, but if you can reskin a current M1A1 and give it the attributes of a plain Jane M1 you could do a 1980s conflict between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, you would need M113s and ITOWs but that is about it.
Allright, someone throw a wrench into my idea; is it really much more difficult for the modders than I think?
-
I can't speak to the Canadian military, but at least in terms of the USMC the pre-deployment training they are getting is far superior to anything ever before seen in military history, regardless of era, conflict, etc. But I do agree that putting meaningfull rounds downrange in the middle of a sudden ambush still is affected by stress and suprise. Thinking come into the equation but many of these troops are trained to the point when thinking doesn't enter into the equation. Yes, there are the adhoc replacements that appear, but it isn't 1944 when guys didn't get any down time as they were either fighting or digging foxholes. What we are seeing today is really the 12 hour war. A given unit will have 12 hours of operations, plus an hour of mission prep beforehand, and an hour of debrief afterwards, so basically a 14 hour work day. Yes, if the **** hits the fan they will be working longer then that, but basically it's a 14 or 15 hour work day. After that they are doing maintainance, doing paperwork, or eating and sleeping. They are not isolated in foxholes the way the troops in WWII were, so the learning curve for newbies is much higher as they are being interacted with and they are learning the lessons of the trade.
But I would make the case that even those green guys that are individual replacements are getting much more combat oriented training than ever before seen in the history of warfare. That's the case at least in the USMC, not sure about National Guard, Army Reserves, or Canada.
[ December 16, 2007, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ]
-
Good post and though I agree with many of your points, I will differ to an extent. And I can't comment on the topic in terms of CMSF as I just got the game today and haven't installed it yet.Originally posted by Snake Raper:I am going to chime in on modern weapons, aiming and lethality. I watched a video a few years ago that showed a police officer and a suspect that basically had the two of them with pistols drawn at about 5ft from each other. Within seconds both had unloaded (8-13 rounds each) and they both missed, from 5ft. Did I mention they were 5ft apart?
We in the military preach 'aimed shots' and 'one shot one kill', but the fact is that individuals are not as effective as doctrine.
There are many factors that not only play a part on the shooter, but also on the weapon and the target. Modern weapons systems with PAQ-4 or PAQ-2 or AN/PVS-14 MNVGs on the person are Gucci but they do not replace basic shooting skills. In a modern battlefield, in a perfect world, where you know the location of all enemies, a section/squad of soldiers can be absolutely obliterating on a poorly equipped group of hostiles. But that same section/squad can be wiped out in close range by people who barely know how to put a mag on an AK-47.
In game, I too have marveled at my troops being killed by AK fire from 200+m away while they run. Hard to do, and almost impossible to do again and again and again in real life.
I am a Canadian soldier and I can say that our pre-deployment training includes movement in the open, (formations and firing on the move) because it is inevitable that in Afghanistan you will be in the open when some wanker fires on you. We accept that in that opening volley at least one of your buddies is going down (otherwise why would they shoot), but we train and train again for what happens in the next few minutes.
The volume and accuracy of fire on the enemy is as much a factor of the individual as it is of the collective training that was conducted prior. But why do we not suffer 100% casualties in an ambush scenario? Simple, adrenaline. The shooters get so wound up, they anticipate the shot, the heart rate is up, there is smoke, dust and debris in the air, there are people shouting, stoppages, mag changes, fast moving targets, dodging targets, incoming fire, there is everything happening at once. Yet in a game, virtually none of that is modded. The soldiers are fearless, they are expert marksman, the battlefield makes no matter to them, their weapon is an extension of them, how could they possibly miss?
Life is more forgiving than games, a game simply cannot crunch all of the numbers for a firefight and no two are the same. It has to come down to a percentage based on an arbitrary number, plus an advantage or two and minus the enemy's advantage.
They may sound similar, but ask anyone who has done close quarter snap shooting and stood in amazement looking at an unmarked target. It happens to the best of us, even me.
I agree with your points in general, and I would agree with them vis-a-vis Iraq (Where the bulk of US forces that are in Syria would have served), back during the initial invasion and before the insurgency really started going. But I differ with the affect suprise and adrenalin have on the current slice of US troops out everyday patrolling the streets of Iraq. These guys have seen more combat than anyone in the US military has since the Korean War. This is not Vietnam where you could go weeks w/o seeing the enemy, those Marines in Falluja and Ramadi were in firefights almost everyday for their entire tours. I have a good friend of mine who says he was priviledged to have kicked in about a dozen doors just during Falluja II and shot insurgent in the face, and he was just with a straight leg leg Marine unit. He says priviledged as he was well trained, operated on instincts, on each occassion he won the gun fight, and he got extremely good at it. He probably kicked in a hundred doors, he just got to shoot the enemy in about a dozen of them. And his experience was mirrored by every Marine in his battalion.
And I mean no diservice to the Canadian military but you just cannot compare Afghanistan to Iraq, it's apples and oranges. I'll use rather a crude and general anology but Afghanistan is Vietnam and Iraq is WWII in terms of the amount of action the troops are seeing. And the train-up during the predeployment phase is probably exponentially better then anything the troops in the European Theater during WWII went through even when you figure in the 'first' divisions to deploy like 1st and 2nd Infantry Divisions and 1st and 2nd Armored Divisions. Iraq is a platoon and squad fight with bits of the company fight thrown in, you don't need to have whole divisions to train and make big arrows on a map. For example I am told the USMC rifle qualification course has gone from 50 rounds to over 1400 since the war started.
So yes, the guy nailing a running troop from 200 yards with an AK should be somewhere in the 99th percentile. But the guy kicking in the door and who is confronted by the insurgent 5 yards away and shoots the insurgent twice in the chest in one second w/o even thinking about it is probably going to fall into the 50th percentile if not lower.
The senior Special Operations trainer for the USMC on the West Coast with just shy of 30 years service told me back in 2004 that these guys today are better than his generation ever dreamed of being. Part of that is better training programs plus more money and assets for training, but a lot of this is guys doing multiple tours in Iraq and simply exercising their skills dozens of times during a deployment.
So I hate to sort of muddy the waters as I haven't fired the game up, but the US troops over there are very, very good at their trade. The insurgents aren't as good and in terms of the Syrians, as well trained as segments of their military may be, they are inexperienced. Even in Iraq the experience isn't really there as even the AQ guys rarely survive more than a couple of encounters with US troops. Sure, ideology and lacking a fear of death counts for something but sizable percentage of indoctrinated suicide bombers get cold feet when it comes time to initiate.
But if troops from either side are routinely cutting down a running target at 200 meters then yes, things need to be changed. I shot expert everytime I was on the range in the USMC except once (around a dozen experts), I have attended LOTS of specialized shooting courses. At 200 meters with an M16 shooting at a running soldier I might hit him once or twice maybe 30% of the time if he ran 25 meters, assuming roughly a 10 second exposure. I think I would get off roughly 5-8 well aimed shots, assuming a second to notice him, another second or two to get my weapon on him. And I am probably in the 99th percentile of the Syrian or AQ TO. And the AK is nowhere near as accurate as the M16 and not even as accurate as a 14.5 inch barrelled M4.
-
To all you AD Army folks; how common is the HK416 these days? I thought initially it was just going to like JSOC elements, but now I am being told straight leg Army units are getting it, is that true? I am talking about the HK upper for the M4 which is gas piston operated. It is much more reliable than the M4 though I never found the M4 that unreliable as long as you kept it clean and weren't shooting frangible ammunition, though cleaning is less of an issue for the HK416.
-
I would think that sloped glacias would double the effective thickness of the SAPI plates.
-
Personally, they should be locked and loaded in most situations. True, huge numbers of personnel (soldiers mostly) are getting killed and maimed by negligent discharges. But that is more a product of poor discipline than having loaded weapons. You respect a weapon when it is loaded. If you carry it around all day unloaded you lose muzzle awareness as you begin to disrespect the weapon. Most of the people hit by negligent discharges were shot with unloaded weapons. What I mean is, the shooter thought the weapon was unloaded. The worst case I heard of was a soldier whose squad leader asked him to mount a flashlight on his rifle. The soldier did so, and then saw some of his friends walking by and he 'jokingly' pointed the weapon at one of them and pulled the trigger. And shot his buddy in the head, killing him instantly. He thought the weapon was unloaded and he hadn't checked it. If everyone is carrying loaded weapons everyone checks to make sure they are unloaded properly. If noone has loaded weapons people stop checking them.
The PC part is just the risk aversion being shown. Big Army has arrived (actually they got there years ago) and lots of fobettes running around with nothing to do but come up with dumb rules. Let me see, we had the speed trap at Bagram in 2004 when there is only one paved road on the whole base.
I had a buddy of mine on base reac in Iraq last year. One of the posts started taking fire and his squad mounted up and and was hauling ass to the perimeter. Followed by an MP vehicle with flashing lights trying to pull them over for speeding.
Or a medic friend evacing a badly wounded soldier who had been hit in a mortar attack on the base. The patient was almost killed and my buddy almost knocked unconscious when the ambulance hit a speed bump erected just that day.
Or back at Bondsteel in 2002. The guards had to punch your weapon with a punchrod, not ONCE, but TWICE, everytime you came on base!
If you don't trust your troops with loaded weapons that is YOUR leadership problem, not theirs.
Yankee, did we learn nothing in Beruit? Those guys carried unloaded weapons also. It's the erossion of preparedness. Next you will need orders from an officer to 'lock and load'.
-
http://washingtontimes.com/national/inring.htm
Wartime PC danger
E-mails from U.S. military officers in Iraq and Afghanistan have exposed an alarming, politically correct practice that is endangering the lives of troops serving in those conflict zones.
According to the officers, U.S. troops are being forced to carry unloaded weapons on most U.S. bases because commanders are more worried about a "negligent" discharge than the very real likelihood of a terrorist attack by an insider on the base. The rule is all the more disconcerting because these troops are in areas where they receive combat pay.
Defense officials say the fear of "negligent" weapon discharge is due to lack of training and is different from concerns about accidental discharge, which involves a mechanical malfunction that rarely occurs.
"This selection of political correctness and safety concerns over force protection contrasts markedly with combat experience in World War II, Korea or Vietnam, where soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines were required to be armed — with loaded weapons — at all times," one official said.
"This is a gross failure of leadership, and in all likelihood has contributed to the U.S. casualty rate," the official said.
The officer in Iraq said the unloaded-gun rule is a symptom of bigger military leadership problems, especially in the Army.
"Unfortunately, many military leaders are little more than managers, and many of those have consciously chosen to reduce themselves to the level of permanent administrator, because it is safer for their careers than risking real decision-making," he said.
The officer warned that the leadership crisis in the Army is producing a "stilted, uninspired Army."
"Such a sterile, hyper-politicized, ponderous, disconnected Army is no match for an inspired, committed, agile, flexible force, even one smaller and less technologically sophisticated," he said of the Islamic terrorist enemy.
A soldier in Afghanistan said the no-loaded-weapons rule is true for bases there as well, adding that soldiers are required to unload weapons after returning from "Indian country."
"The idea that anyone, anywhere, would carry firearms for serious social interaction, yet do so with them in any condition other than ready to fire at a moment's notice, is so stupid no 'discussion' appears necessary, at least among the sane," the soldier said.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271937,00.html
Questions Raised on Army Troop-Carrying Vehicle
Sunday , May 13, 2007
AP
BAGHDAD —
A string of heavy losses from powerful roadside bombs has raised new questions about the vulnerability of the Stryker, the Army's troop-carrying vehicle hailed by supporters as the key to a leaner, more mobile force.
Since the Strykers went into action in violent Diyala province north of Baghdad two months ago, losses of the vehicles have been rising steadily, U.S. officials said.
A single infantry company in Diyala lost five Strykers this month in less than a week, according to soldiers familiar with the losses, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release the information. The overall number of Strykers lost recently is classified.
In one of the biggest hits, six American soldiers and a journalist were killed when a huge bomb exploded beneath their Stryker on May 6. It was the biggest one-day loss for the battalion in more than two years.
"We went for several months with no losses and were very proud of that," a senior Army official said in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to comment publicly. "Since then, there have been quite a few Stryker losses."
"They are learning how to defeat them," the Army official said of Iraqi insurgents.
The Army introduced the $11 billion, eight-wheeled Stryker in 1999 as the cornerstone of a ground force of the future — hoping to create faster, more agile armored units than tank-equipped units, but with more firepower and protection than light-infantry units.
But the Army and the Marines are already looking for something different that can survive big roadside bombs — the main threat to soldiers in Iraq — meaning the Stryker's high-profile status as the Army's "next generation" vehicle may be short-lived.
"It is indeed an open question if the Stryker is right for this type of warfare," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior analyst with the Brookings Institution. "I am inclined to think that the concept works better for peacekeeping. But based on data the Army has made available to date, it's hard to be sure."
Supporters of the Strykers, which have been used in Iraq since late 2003, say the vehicles that carry two crew members and 11 infantrymen offer mobility, firepower and comfort.
Lighter and faster than tracked vehicles like tanks, each Stryker can rush soldiers quickly to a fight, enabling commanders to maintain security over a wide area with relatively fewer troops. Humvees can carry only four soldiers — and are more vulnerable to bombs even when their armor is upgraded.
"I love Strykers," said Spc. Christopher Hagen, based in Baqouba. "With Strykers, you're mobile, you're fast. You can get anywhere anytime. They bring a lot of troops to the fight."
But some analysts have long questioned the wisdom of moving away from more heavily armored tracked vehicles like tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles to wheeled transports, like the Stryker.
They say that is especially true in Iraq, where powerful bombs — not rocket-propelled grenades or small arms fire — are the main threat.
"The Stryker vehicle was conceived at a time when the Army was more concerned about mobility and agility than it was about protection," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst from the Lexington Institute. "Stryker was the answer to that need."
The Stryker's vulnerabilities have become increasingly apparent since a battalion of about 700 soldiers and nearly 100 Stryker vehicles from the Army's 2nd Infantry Division was sent to Diyala province in March to bolster an infantry brigade struggling to restore order there.
Trouble started as soon as the Strykers arrived in Baqouba, the provincial capital of Diyala.
U.S. commanders ordered the vehicles into Baqouba's streets at dawn the day after they arrived. The hope was that the large, menacing vehicles — armed with a heavy machine gun and a 105mm cannon — would intimidate insurgents and reassure local residents.
Instead, insurgents hammered the Strykers with automatic weapons fire, rocket-propelled grenades and a network of roadside bombs. By the end of that first day, one American soldier was dead, 12 were wounded and two Strykers were destroyed.
Losses have since mounted. The May 6 attack that killed six soldiers and a Russian journalist was followed a few days later by another blast. Soldiers scrambled out of the Stryker and took cover in a house while they watched the vehicle burn. Several of them were injured but none seriously.
Lt. Col. Bruce Antonio, who commands a Stryker battalion in Diyala, said he and soldiers still have confidence in the Strykers and noted they had survived many bombs, which the military calls improvised explosive device or IEDs.
But Antonio said some insurgents had found "the right mix of explosives and IED positioning to inflict severe damage on the vehicle." He also noted that tanks had also proved vulnerable too.
The insurgents also apparently are becoming better at hiding the devices — the IED that killed the six soldiers and the journalist was believed hidden in a sewer line. To add potency, insurgents surrounded the device with cement to channel the blast force up into the tank, according to soldiers familiar with the investigation.
Supporters of the Strykers say all that proves that it's the lethality of bombs in Iraq — not the Strykers themselves — that are the problem: The bombs are now so powerful that even Abrams main battle tanks are vulnerable to some of them.
"I'm not sure if it's any reflection on the (Stryker) but rather on how things are getting worse" in Iraq, according to a senior Democratic congressional staffer who tracks Army programs, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.
Stryker soldiers said that when they were based in Mosul in the north, roadside bombs weren't so big — often, little more than pipe bombs. In Baqouba, the bombs are bigger and buried deeper, making them difficult to detect.
"With what we got hit with the other day, it wouldn't have mattered what we were in," said Spc. John Pearce, speaking of the May 6 bomb. "We were going to take casualties, regardless."
Either way, the Army and Marine Corps already are pushing for new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, or MRAPS, whose V-shaped hulls are designed to deflect bomb blasts outward, rather than through the vehicle.
The Pentagon has requested nearly 7,800 of the new vehicles at a cost of $8.4 billion and is considering ordering thousands more to give soldiers better protection.
Such moves, however, serve only to reinforce the views of critics, who believe the Army opted for a vehicle that was useful in Balkan peacekeeping or other "low threat" missions but is inadequate in so-called "asymmetric warfare," where a weaker opponent devises simple tools to exploit a strong opponent's weak points.
"As long as the Stryker-equipped light infantry was used ... against lightly armed insurgents, there was no problem," said retired Col. Douglas Macgregor, who writes on defense issues.
"Now, they are being tossed into the urban battle where only tracked armor can survive."
-
Interesting article from last month's Atlantic Monthly. I'd be interested in some poster's opinions of the mentioned books, some of which have been mentioned in this topic already.
Edit: Sorry, didn't realize you needed to have a subscription to get to that. Here's another link that discusses the article, and then includes the article at the end;
http://www.russiablog.org/2007/04/did_uncle_joe_win_the_war.php
[ May 12, 2007, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: civdiv ]
-
John, if you read that list carefully, along with the text above and below, you will see that on the contrary, very few M1s were destroyed by the Iraqis. Most were killed by friendly fire or were bogged or M-killed and then destroyed by friendly forces. And 'few' is actually more than were actually killed by anything Iraqi.Originally posted by John Kettler:This, under the OIF section, confirms M1 vulnerability to the kinds of IEDs I described. It further appears that some of the carcasses I saw may be from Desert Storm, for tank losses there were much more than I knew at the time. Further, it appears that the Iraqi T-72s did more damage to our tanks than we heard before. See particularly footnote 5.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1A2
Regards,
John Kettler
civdiv
-
IIRC, in ASL being low on fuel was a 'state' imposed on a vehicle at the beginning of the scenario and it was simulated by a higher breakdown number. I could see this being simulated pretty easily by simply increasing the bog chance on a vehicle. But honestly, I see little utility in this feature.
civdiv
-
I would really like to see a US vs French module. But to make things even BF would have to model this unit;Originally posted by Victoria Cross:It would be interesting to see the modules in CMSF be able to play each other blue vs. blue: US Marines vs Canadians, i.e. M1A2s and Bradleys vs. Leopard IIs and LAV IIIs.
Has anyone suggest an Israeli module ? Seems it would go well with the Middle-Eastern theme and we could play the Merkeva's
Food for thought
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29257
civdiv
-
The one hit during Thunder Run was only an M-Kill. And then the US spent an hour shooting at it trying to get it to burn. And many of the shots are the same tanks shot from different angles, while they were burning and after they had burned out, taken while they were being towed and the tow line broke, and finally after they had been pulled back to a base. All told there are like a total of 4 or 5 Abrams in those shots, and one more that isn't even damaged, just bogged.
civdiv
-
'Check out "Caeser's Commentaries" there is a wood carving of a Tribune flipping the bird to a Roman Senator on an inspection tour of Gaul.'
That's so passe.
civdiv
The Mystery Battery at Omaha
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
Just saw this, thought it was interesting;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=506065&in_page_id=1770