John Kettler

Bil,
 
You would appear to follow the "reports of my death are greatly exaggerated" model. You've taken some serious lumps, but from what I can tell, this is in no way stopping you from continuing offensive ops. I don't see why losing the FSV wouldn't be a major hit on pnzrldr's FS capability. After all, not only are the specialists there, but so, too, the technical gear. Are you positing he has either a JFO or a JTAC (same link)? My understanding is that you both are operating in a pretty heavy ECM environment. Is this correct, or are you the only one handing out annoying electron gifts? Your pic of the spotting of the Javelin team confused me, for my brain perceived US infantry in the foreground, since my brain isn't used to seeing Russians in digicam, body armor and such. Considering your BMP-2K was a dedicated command vehicle, I'm astounded that it had so many men aboard (11?). Don't all those map boards and computer displays take up a lot of room? On a lighter note, except to the crew, the demise of 1 MRC's BMP-3 is clearly traceable to getting hung up on a birch while hastily reversing! In fact, the reversing was so forcefully done that the tree partially embedded itself in the vehicle, fouling it long enough to allow the fatal event to occur. Eight turns left until the Su-25 and two attack helos show up, eh? Wonder where pnzrldr's force will be by then? Am surprised the BMP-2 you engaged from that splendid keyhole position simply sat there through two complete RPG firings and didn't either move or shoot back. Decidedly odd behavior. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

A new study looks at the to-be-expected negative impacts of online gaming on marriages, as well as the unexpected benefits for some couples. As for you lot dating or canoodling under the same roof, no study for you!

http://healthland.time. (usual) /2012/02/16/is-online-gaming-messing-up-your-marriage/

Regards,

John Kettler

pnzrldr has started dishing out pain, rather than watching his forces die and die? Alert the media! Wait. Someone has!
 
(Stentorian intonation and blaring graphics WAR IN UKRAINE!)
 
"We interrupt this program for breaking news. CNN has just learned that main force US-led NATO units have arrived at (insert location) in Ukraine and are in heavy contact. We would've had this report sooner, but heavy jamming interfered with cell phones and our satellite systems. We go now to (insert name of war correspondent not allowed to be an embed).(Helmet and body armor clad field reporter is seen momentarily and with intermittent audio before screen dissolves into unrecognizable hash and producer tells anchor to come back) (With aplomb anchor states) We'll come back to (insert name) just as soon as technical difficulties have been resolved (which doesn't happen, since Putin's mightily determined not to show the flaming wrecks his once triumphant force is being turned into). Judging from early reports, it appears that the defending Ukrainian forces (details), together with unknown numbers of American advisers (more details), were previously savaged by (insert pejorative) Russian artillery, tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. It is feared the relieving force may be too late, though CNN has learned the newly arrived American tank and mechanized force is exacting terrible vengeance on the Russians, as it smashes through the Russian force in a headlong effort to destroy the besiegers and rescue what's left of the stalwart defenders. We turn now to our (talking head) military adviser (show Ukraine map first, then Digital globe hi-res imagery and maps of combat zone) who will use his expertise to fill us in on what's likely happening there." (Pontificating begins and continues until anchor becomes exasperated and abruptly breaks off because military adviser won't shut up). We'll keep you abreast of details as this important story continues to unfold. Stay tuned to CNN.
 
(Cut to same as at beginning)
 
"We now return to our original program."
 
(Gets back just in time for a cat food commercial)
----------------------------------------------------------------
 
AMP round info from Army.mil site on March 2013.
 
That was then. Here it comes. Presolicitation from Department of the Army. Lots of changes and amendments right through November 4, 2014.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Artofwar,
 
The only way extra ordinance will get the job done is if the code of municipal offenses hits the TC's head hard enough to cause him to duck and close the hatch.  On a more serious note, the US Army concluded after careful study that forcing a tank to button reduces its combat effectiveness by 50%. The IDF decided the combat effectiveness delta was more important than the TC casualty risks, so IDF tankers fought brilliantly, under heavy fire, during the Yom Kippur War vs Syria, but took terrible TC losses. When attacked by armor, the first priority of the defenders is to force it to button, for this both cuts enemy effectiveness and paves the way for a whole series of antiarmor measures. In CM terms, forcing the TC to button is always desirable (greatly complicates spotting and adds delay to the process), but wounding or killing him is better. In CMx1 the last two put the tank into Shocked state in which it was pretty much paralyzed while the crew sorted things out, and during which many a tank died. It's not quite as extreme in CMx2 and CMx3, but a TC casualty can still get a tank killed while the men reposition inside and such. Play "Barkmann's Corner" in CMBN if you doubt this. And for a real world look at what happens when the boss falls back into the turret (in this case while already buttoned), see the account of 3 AD's Oda Miller. The combat memoirs I've read talk over and over again about British TCs sniped, shot in the head or chest by MG fire, hit by mortar or shell frags, even decapitated by an AT shell. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

If you appreciate truly inspired (eat your heart out SNL), weird twisted "news items" on military matters, or simply need a good laugh and a new perspective, check out duffleblog. Where else can see read such ingeniously warped stuff like this about the treachery of the pardoned White House turkey, the death of Bin Laden--as told by the bullet that killed him or such madness as why SEALs must take Creative Writing? Several of the pieces I read cracked me up so much I almost fell off the exercise ball which is presently my ad hoc office chair!
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler 

SeinfeldRules,
 
I used to work for Hughes MSG (Missile Systems Group), Canoga Park, and a sister organization, Hughes GSG (Ground Systems Group), was in Fullerton. GSG made both the TPQ-36 and TPQ-37 radars. We used to have Thursday afternoon tech briefs, sometimes classified, and one such was from GSG tech experts for the Firefinders. Using Los Angles City Hall as a thought model, we were told that enemy fire could not only be localized to City Hall, but a specific corner of the building. Additionally, we were told that with a dedicated battery, counterfire could be backplotted (backplotting done practically as soon as projectile cleared radar mask) and en route to the enemy before the hostile round even landed.During the Cold War, Russian doctrinal pubs specifically planned around taking NATO counterfire in four minutes. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

What? Not a single reply? Was the topic too daring; my thread title too shocking, or did I ruin it with the part after the em dash? Until someone responds, I can but speculate. Alone.

Regards,

John Kettler

Michael Emrys,
 
I really don't get this whole thing about voting on posts. What's next? An on-camera interview in ball gowns in which we'll all answer "world peace" so that people will support our posts? I have enough to deal with just getting the actual posts coherent and out.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Der Alte Fritz,

I appreciate the information you provided, but I must disagree with your 3). The quotes Suvorov provides regarding the fortification situation at the border in no way supports the assertion that the Stalin Line was, in a sense, being moved to the new frontier. Suvorov provides quote after quote from officers involved with minelaying, the creation of defensive lines and more, all of which contradict the assertion. This is what he said:

"Empty territory, even without any technical defence installations, would have served as a security zone after its own fashion, by allowing the main forces ime to get ready for action. But, according to the official Soviet account,

The armies . . . were to deploy directly along the state frontier ... in spite of the fact that its geographical outline was entirely disadvantageous to defence. Even those security /ones stipulated in our pre-war directives had not been technically prepared, (htoriya Velikoi Otechestvennoi Voiny, Voenizdat 1961, Vol. 2, p. 49)"

NOTE I believe "security /ones" is really "security zones." "Not technically been prepared" was actually "were nonexistent because the defensive scheme left them out altogether."

Armies right on the border--with no security zone as ordered in the regs! Not exactly a new Stalin Line. There's also this.

"The fortified regions of the Molotov Line were built right up against the frontier. They were not protected by a security zone, and in the event of a surprise attack the garrisons would no longer have time to occupy their combat installations and bring their weaponry to full readiness. Unlike those along the Stalin Line, the fortified regions of the Molotov Line were not very deep. Everything which could have been built on the frontier itself, was in fact built there. Defence positions were not built in the rear, nor was it ever planned to build any. (Lieutenant-General V. F. Zotov, Na Severo-Zapadnom Fronte, Moscow Nauka 1969, p. 175)"

The fortifications were not sited on positions which would favour defence, but followed every bend and twist of the state frontier. The new combat installations were not protected by barbed wire, mines, ditches, stakes, hedgehog entanglements or anti-tank tetrahedrons, nor were any engineered defences erected in the area of construction. Neither were the new installations camouflaged. For example, in the fortified region of Vladimir-Volynsk, 'out of 97 combat installations, 5-7 were covered with earth, while the remainder were virtually decamouflaged'. (VIZH 1976, No. 5, p. 91)"

Clearly, this isn't the way to build a defense, and that's being excruciatingly charitable. Further, it's clear from the accounts of those charged with building it that it would never be even a shadow of the Stalin Line. Indeed, the Molotov Line was arguably the antithesis of every tenet of sound defense. I'm no military engineer, but I guarantee that I could lay out a far better defense scheme than the one described. And I flunked the surveying field exercise when I took Archaeology in college! And while rational people would've been worrying about how fast and effectively they could erect border defenses for the frontier, look at the real agenda when it came to dealing with prepared defenses. It was overcoming German ones!

"Everyone had his mind on overcoming such obstacles on enemy territory. That is why, under cover of a TASS announcement of 13 June 1939, some Soviet marshals and leading experts on obstacle clearing made their secret appearance on the western frontier.

Marshal of the Soviet Union G. Kulik, who had secretly arrived in Byelorussia, discussed the situation with Colonel Starinov. 'Let's have mine-detectors, sappers and trawl equipment!' he demanded (Miny Zhdut Svoego Chasa, p. 179) The Marshal was thinking about German territory. All the mines on Soviet territory had already been rendered harmless, and all the obstacles dismantled. 'You have not named your branch correctly,' the Marshal went on to tell him. 'To be in accordance with our doctrine you should call it the branch for the clearance of obstacles and mines. Once we would have thought otherwise, and harped on defence, defence . . . but enough of that!' (Ibid, quoted by Starinov)"

There, again, is the unremitting emphasis on the offensive and not merely disregard of defensive issues but extraordinary animus toward them, as explicitly shown by the above quote and the one below.

"Practically all the Soviet engineering and railway troops were gathered on the western frontiers. Sapper units and units belonging to those divisions, corps and armies which were concentrated on the frontier itself, as well as other units from other formations which had begun to move up to the border, were all operating in the frontier zone before the war began. The Soviet sappers were busy preparing the departure positions from which the offensive would begin; laying down roads for columns to move along; surmounting and erecting engineered defences, creating tactical and strategic camouflage, ensuring that the infantry and tanks which formed part of the assault groups interacted properly; protecting forced river crossings . . . (Sovietskie Vooruzhennye Sily, Voenizdat 1978, p. 255)

Let not the words 'erecting engineered defences' mislead the reader. By the time that the decisive attack on the Finnish Mannerheim Line began, Soviet sappers had also built several sectors consisting of engineered defence obstacles similar to the Finnish ones. Before going into battle, the newly arrived Soviet troops were put through these defences, which had been put there for training purposes. After that, they went over to the real attack."

What I've presented is by no means the full array of intelligence indicators pointing, not to the creation of strong, combat stable defenses, but of assembly areas and jumping off positions for a massive attack against Germany. And as Suvorov notes, the, in a nutshell, defense killing things the Russians were doing, the Germans were likewise doing on their side of the border. Faster. There was no plan to recreated the Stalin Line to cover the frontier, for to do so would've tied up enormous manpower and resources building a very large set of installations smack on the approach route into Germany. As already noted, the most ruthless measures were being applied to clear the way, to include not siting the Molotov Line in strategic areas where it might hinder the offensive and even removing the barbed wire fence at the border.

Regards,

John Kettler

Michael Emrys,
 
I really don't get this whole thing about voting on posts. What's next? An on-camera interview in ball gowns in which we'll all answer "world peace" so that people will support our posts? I have enough to deal with just getting the actual posts coherent and out.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

It's been the custom for some time now for us to inform new CM players the game is E-crack; to write off any relationships, sleep, eating (except gamer food) and to resign themselves to monastic devotion to CM. There is no 12-Step Program, but we all know how addictive the game is and the plaintive "Just one more turn" we find ourselves thinking or even uttering, right?
 
Guess what? if you're a reader and a Kindle (or similar) should enter your life, you're done. It's over. And if you don't watch yourself, so is your economy. Not only is the core idea worse than crack--give away the reader and make money on the E-books--but the temptation is everywhere you turn, starting with the full page ad which greets you when you open your new mistress. Add to that an entire row of other books waiting for your purchase. Now, in my case, I did my searches via my computer (didn't really know what I was doing yet on the Kindle) and bought a few things, using, so I thought, a relatively safe gift card. First warning: there is no relatively safe, especially if you're already an Amazon customer and the system has your credit card or debit card on file, not to mention a highly detailed list of every book you ever looked at. Mark this and mark it well.
 
Okay. One way or another you buy some E-books, probably some for 99 cents, others for a few bucks, maybe get some free ones while you're at it. Quite a few for minuscule outlay (unless you get some that unbelievably go for $200) No worries. Many of the E-books are short (70-80 pages), so if you're any sort of reader at all, you go through one in record time, but you're doomed from the first and don't know it. As soon as you finish a book, you're asked to rate it and are served up more books the AI thinks will be of further interest (heaven preserve you if you're interested in Spec Ops!). You've just come off a high and are now asked whether you'd like another fix? But how about this other drug? Not sure? No sweat. Here's a free sample. We'll even deliver! You'll just try it; what can it hurt? Famous last words! It just so happens the Sample button and the galvanizing Buy Now button are practically on top of one another, while the Undo link for the oops! purchase is buried in a paragraph of smallish type below the two prominent buttons. Human nature being what it is, how many oopses become actual purchases? I'd imagine many, for the temptation is great to say: "Screw it; it's only a few bucks" (did just that last night, so now have a Delta Operator's memoir I hadn't planned to get--really good book, though). 
 
And this is what confronts you every single time you open the Kindle or what have you! People who have no impulse control and love to read are going to self-immolate. Period. For others, it'll be more like a time bomb or death by inches. One E-book (or worse, several) at a time.  Amazon makes it oh so easy to kill yourself with a bunch of seemingly nitnoy purchases. Next thing you know, you discover your outlay rivals some credit card bills. That's if you're sufficiently coherent to notice. After all, your E-reader craves attention. Nay, demands it. It doesn't respond to chocolates or flowers. Only time and money!
 
NOTE
 
The above is somewhat tongue in cheek, but only somewhat. There is a very real financial danger here, and it is altogether too easy to buy and buy and buy. I managed to stop at only two unplanned book purchases (mercifully only $3.99 in aggregate, plus that additional quarter or fifty cents Amazon tacks on), but was offered 93 total since I was curious enough/foolish enough to ask for the complete list, rather than just the five on the main page. It goes without saying, but needs to be said, that this could have rather dire impact on getting the next CM, upgrade, vehicle pack, etc. Consider yourself warned!
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

pnzrldr,
 
Very much appreciate the weapon performance info and your insights. Since the Abrams is your thing (fervently hope so!), perhaps you could explain to me why the turret undercuts around the gun mount and the pronounced gap between the turret and the hull aren't Grade One shot traps, not to mention what happens when something clobbers the driver's hatch and keeps going right up under the turret?
 
gunnersman,
 
25mm tank kills during ODS. My understanding is that these were all flank shots.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle
 
"The tungsten APDS-T rounds proved highly effective in Desert Storm being capable of knocking out many Iraqi vehicles including several kills on T-55 tanks. There have even been reports of kills against Iraqi T-72 tanks at close range."
 
In a StrategyPage thread in which our very own flamingknives appears, we learn that the Bradleys were firing DU, not tungsten. This squares with my recollections from the time. Flank kills on T-62 and T-72 out to about 1 km. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

jamo552,
 
Until it doesn't. Trevor Dupuy had an outright disastrous prediction regarding GW I. It pretty much wasn't in even the same universe as the outcome, which saw minuscule US direct casualties (not DU poisoning and such), when the QJM predicted a horrific attrition based meat grinder. This meat grinder model was based on what happened in the many years of combat between Iraq and Iran, but it utterly failed to address a whole series of factors not in play there, not the least of which was overwhelming Coalition airpower. While its effectiveness was greatly overstated when it came to killing armor, it was really good at isolating the battlefield, tearing up logistics columns and facilities and preventing resupply. Read the accounts. Deluges of aerial ordnance (B-52 carpet bombing, for one), coupled with little food or water, not to mention officers abandoning their men. And when the vaunted Iraqi artillery, still functioning despite concentrated efforts to remove it, did open fire, back came what the Iraqis called "steel rain": 616 DPICM submunitions per MLRS rocket. A single SPLL could effectively cover an entire 1 x 1 km grid square. How'd you like to be in an open gun position with that pouring down?
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

pnzrldr has started dishing out pain, rather than watching his forces die and die? Alert the media! Wait. Someone has!
 
(Stentorian intonation and blaring graphics WAR IN UKRAINE!)
 
"We interrupt this program for breaking news. CNN has just learned that main force US-led NATO units have arrived at (insert location) in Ukraine and are in heavy contact. We would've had this report sooner, but heavy jamming interfered with cell phones and our satellite systems. We go now to (insert name of war correspondent not allowed to be an embed).(Helmet and body armor clad field reporter is seen momentarily and with intermittent audio before screen dissolves into unrecognizable hash and producer tells anchor to come back) (With aplomb anchor states) We'll come back to (insert name) just as soon as technical difficulties have been resolved (which doesn't happen, since Putin's mightily determined not to show the flaming wrecks his once triumphant force is being turned into). Judging from early reports, it appears that the defending Ukrainian forces (details), together with unknown numbers of American advisers (more details), were previously savaged by (insert pejorative) Russian artillery, tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. It is feared the relieving force may be too late, though CNN has learned the newly arrived American tank and mechanized force is exacting terrible vengeance on the Russians, as it smashes through the Russian force in a headlong effort to destroy the besiegers and rescue what's left of the stalwart defenders. We turn now to our (talking head) military adviser (show Ukraine map first, then Digital globe hi-res imagery and maps of combat zone) who will use his expertise to fill us in on what's likely happening there." (Pontificating begins and continues until anchor becomes exasperated and abruptly breaks off because military adviser won't shut up). We'll keep you abreast of details as this important story continues to unfold. Stay tuned to CNN.
 
(Cut to same as at beginning)
 
"We now return to our original program."
 
(Gets back just in time for a cat food commercial)
----------------------------------------------------------------
 
AMP round info from Army.mil site on March 2013.
 
That was then. Here it comes. Presolicitation from Department of the Army. Lots of changes and amendments right through November 4, 2014.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

pnzrldr has started dishing out pain, rather than watching his forces die and die? Alert the media! Wait. Someone has!
 
(Stentorian intonation and blaring graphics WAR IN UKRAINE!)
 
"We interrupt this program for breaking news. CNN has just learned that main force US-led NATO units have arrived at (insert location) in Ukraine and are in heavy contact. We would've had this report sooner, but heavy jamming interfered with cell phones and our satellite systems. We go now to (insert name of war correspondent not allowed to be an embed).(Helmet and body armor clad field reporter is seen momentarily and with intermittent audio before screen dissolves into unrecognizable hash and producer tells anchor to come back) (With aplomb anchor states) We'll come back to (insert name) just as soon as technical difficulties have been resolved (which doesn't happen, since Putin's mightily determined not to show the flaming wrecks his once triumphant force is being turned into). Judging from early reports, it appears that the defending Ukrainian forces (details), together with unknown numbers of American advisers (more details), were previously savaged by (insert pejorative) Russian artillery, tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. It is feared the relieving force may be too late, though CNN has learned the newly arrived American tank and mechanized force is exacting terrible vengeance on the Russians, as it smashes through the Russian force in a headlong effort to destroy the besiegers and rescue what's left of the stalwart defenders. We turn now to our (talking head) military adviser (show Ukraine map first, then Digital globe hi-res imagery and maps of combat zone) who will use his expertise to fill us in on what's likely happening there." (Pontificating begins and continues until anchor becomes exasperated and abruptly breaks off because military adviser won't shut up). We'll keep you abreast of details as this important story continues to unfold. Stay tuned to CNN.
 
(Cut to same as at beginning)
 
"We now return to our original program."
 
(Gets back just in time for a cat food commercial)
----------------------------------------------------------------
 
AMP round info from Army.mil site on March 2013.
 
That was then. Here it comes. Presolicitation from Department of the Army. Lots of changes and amendments right through November 4, 2014.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Bil,
 
I wasn't sure in what formation or configuration the Americans would arrive in, but this one looks like fully deployed in battle array. Combat power writ large. On the positive side, it gives your remaining airpower lots of targets!
 
antaress73,
 
Methinks you misunderstand the nature of warfare. Numerical force superiority certainly helps, as does high tech (when it's working) but is no guarantor of success. The NTC is one of the major reasons the Army cleaned Saddam's clock, and the lessons learned there by the rotating units at the hands of OPFOR were brutal and taken to heart, as seen in the linked CGSC study of lessons learned at NTC. With perhaps the odd exception here and there, the key to American combat effectiveness lies in rigorous ongoing training using everything from a battle plan scratched in the sand with a stick to full-on engagements with MILES gear and live fire training on a simply enviable scale. But ultimately, it comes down to the men (and in some branches women) who must fight the fight. It is upon their professionalism, motivation and sheer aggressiveness, determination and willingness to do what it takes that determines who wins and who loses. It isn't, as they say, the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.
 
Give me such people in inferior equipment over conscripts and some contract soldiers in better tanks but lacking, say, battle commanders able or allowed to show real initiative, worked up from the bottom professional noncoms (not someone who spent six months in a sergeant academy) and the military and  technical skills to maximize combat effectiveness, not to mention keep their fancy toys running properly, and the nominally outclassed and outgunned will mop the floor with them. History is replete with examples of smaller, sometimes tiny (see particularly BG Claire Chennault's comment on that at first link) military forces clobbering the opposition. Flying Tigers. Alexander the Great at Gaugamela. Napoleon at Jena-Auerstedt. Here's a fascinating list of ten more.
 
Rinaldi,
 
Insane, but in a good way! Big Monty Python fan.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

It's been the custom for some time now for us to inform new CM players the game is E-crack; to write off any relationships, sleep, eating (except gamer food) and to resign themselves to monastic devotion to CM. There is no 12-Step Program, but we all know how addictive the game is and the plaintive "Just one more turn" we find ourselves thinking or even uttering, right?
 
Guess what? if you're a reader and a Kindle (or similar) should enter your life, you're done. It's over. And if you don't watch yourself, so is your economy. Not only is the core idea worse than crack--give away the reader and make money on the E-books--but the temptation is everywhere you turn, starting with the full page ad which greets you when you open your new mistress. Add to that an entire row of other books waiting for your purchase. Now, in my case, I did my searches via my computer (didn't really know what I was doing yet on the Kindle) and bought a few things, using, so I thought, a relatively safe gift card. First warning: there is no relatively safe, especially if you're already an Amazon customer and the system has your credit card or debit card on file, not to mention a highly detailed list of every book you ever looked at. Mark this and mark it well.
 
Okay. One way or another you buy some E-books, probably some for 99 cents, others for a few bucks, maybe get some free ones while you're at it. Quite a few for minuscule outlay (unless you get some that unbelievably go for $200) No worries. Many of the E-books are short (70-80 pages), so if you're any sort of reader at all, you go through one in record time, but you're doomed from the first and don't know it. As soon as you finish a book, you're asked to rate it and are served up more books the AI thinks will be of further interest (heaven preserve you if you're interested in Spec Ops!). You've just come off a high and are now asked whether you'd like another fix? But how about this other drug? Not sure? No sweat. Here's a free sample. We'll even deliver! You'll just try it; what can it hurt? Famous last words! It just so happens the Sample button and the galvanizing Buy Now button are practically on top of one another, while the Undo link for the oops! purchase is buried in a paragraph of smallish type below the two prominent buttons. Human nature being what it is, how many oopses become actual purchases? I'd imagine many, for the temptation is great to say: "Screw it; it's only a few bucks" (did just that last night, so now have a Delta Operator's memoir I hadn't planned to get--really good book, though). 
 
And this is what confronts you every single time you open the Kindle or what have you! People who have no impulse control and love to read are going to self-immolate. Period. For others, it'll be more like a time bomb or death by inches. One E-book (or worse, several) at a time.  Amazon makes it oh so easy to kill yourself with a bunch of seemingly nitnoy purchases. Next thing you know, you discover your outlay rivals some credit card bills. That's if you're sufficiently coherent to notice. After all, your E-reader craves attention. Nay, demands it. It doesn't respond to chocolates or flowers. Only time and money!
 
NOTE
 
The above is somewhat tongue in cheek, but only somewhat. There is a very real financial danger here, and it is altogether too easy to buy and buy and buy. I managed to stop at only two unplanned book purchases (mercifully only $3.99 in aggregate, plus that additional quarter or fifty cents Amazon tacks on), but was offered 93 total since I was curious enough/foolish enough to ask for the complete list, rather than just the five on the main page. It goes without saying, but needs to be said, that this could have rather dire impact on getting the next CM, upgrade, vehicle pack, etc. Consider yourself warned!
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

m0317624 (and likeminded),
 
I barely know what Steam is, have never used it and have no dog in this hunt. That said, though you're coming off badly (and are drawing heavy fire inconsequence), I believe you really are coming from a god place; that your intention is to help. Unfortunately for you, the examples you offer as "proof" aren't necessarily broadly applicable. If any firm falls under that rubric, it's BFC. Recall, not only did BFC conceive and develop, on a very slender shoestring, a revolutionary wargame, CMx1's CMBO, but it simultaneously pioneered a revolutionary way of marketing that game. BFC has thrived where many others wargame firms have foundered and sunk, or have simply vanished. It survived an imploding economy. It survived a painful and expensive outing in brick and mortar land, and it came back determined never to go there again. There was also, I believe, a fiasco in which CMSF (?) was rushed to release because of contractual obligations. BFC absolutely doesn't and won't do that anymore. Steve has repeatedly made it clear that BFC, unlike EA some years ago which, despite its vast resources (millions) was nearly destroyed by one bad decision (all eggs in one basket dropped; bad for eggs), yet survived, simply can't afford to be wrong.
 
We can have opinions and argue them until the end of Time, but BFC must ever weigh the risks against the gains, and we, too, must hope Steve et al. continue to make wise business decisions. Saying, in essence, "BFC is like a dinosaur which won't adapt and dooms itself to extinction" seems, to me, to be a huge overstretch. I guarantee you that some very sharp and highly motivated (like to eat, have a place to live, etc.) people keep a gimlet eye on everything pertinent in their industry. BFC has learned the hard way that giving up control is likely a business killer. And what if BFC did go with Steam, but then there's some upheaval which fundamentally alters, disrupts or even destroys Steam? What then? How bright would that business decision have been--as seen from bankruptcy court?! As it stands, BFC creates the product, BFC handles and ships the product, so BFC isn't losing a huge chunk of revenue to layers of middlemen, nor do its products suffer the ignominy of the $5 clearance bin. In fact, CMBO is still for sale at a very respectable $15--for a game released in 2000! There are still people playing it--and new ones discovering the game and buying it.
 
BFC isn't a PC but a Mac (smaller production, but high quality and higher profit margin); it isn't GM but Rolls Royce; it's not Wonder Bread but artisanal bread, to give but a few examples. I can't speak to the useful gaming life of what's on Steam, but I will say that the overwhelming feedback from our members who play many games and of various sorts is that nothing touches CM when it comes to entertainment value and duration per dollar spent. And BFC gives away the demos so people don't have to make the outlays you find so objectionable blind; so they can determine, for themselves, whether this game is for them. Why is it that people don't bat an eye for a $70 FPS which has a play through time of, say, 14 hours, but gag over spending $105.00 (discounted from $135.00 if purchased separately) for the complete CMBN (v 3.12), including CW and MG, yet can play the latter pretty much forever? Which, I ask, is the more cost effective outlay? Nor is it safe to assert that because CM isn't on Steam, that no one knows about it, therefore can't possibly buy the game. In addition to game mags and game sites, which run game reviews and interviews with Steve about every pending CM release, there's this thing called YouTube and some other means called Twitch. ChrisND has done a great deal to raise CM's profile, and people searching for WW II computer games will find goodies like these served up. And ChrisND isn't the only one.
 
1716 views--for a game still in Beta!


 
5250 views


 
4956 views


 
7234 views
 

 
Nor does it follow that these are the same gamers watching these diverse games. Quite the opposite. Gamers very definitely have preferences, some quite emphatic. And for every person who sees one of these vids, how many additional positive marketing events result when someone shares what was seen? Word of mouth advertising is incredibly powerful, and social media have only made it more so. And what you need to realize is that because of its business model, BFC doesn't need massive sales in order to prosper. Would they be nice to have? Sure, but BFC is niche marketing, rather than trying to sell everyone MoH, Halo, GoW or the latest MMORPG for that matter. BFC's business model works for BFC and, by extension, us. BFC has no suicidal impulse at work here in avoiding Steam, and if it needs to change how it does what it does, it will do so and for good, solid reasons based on an intimate understanding of BFC.

On a whimsical note, what's next? A debate on who played Hammurabi via Time Shared acoustic modem first?!
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

m0317624 (and likeminded),
 
I barely know what Steam is, have never used it and have no dog in this hunt. That said, though you're coming off badly (and are drawing heavy fire inconsequence), I believe you really are coming from a god place; that your intention is to help. Unfortunately for you, the examples you offer as "proof" aren't necessarily broadly applicable. If any firm falls under that rubric, it's BFC. Recall, not only did BFC conceive and develop, on a very slender shoestring, a revolutionary wargame, CMx1's CMBO, but it simultaneously pioneered a revolutionary way of marketing that game. BFC has thrived where many others wargame firms have foundered and sunk, or have simply vanished. It survived an imploding economy. It survived a painful and expensive outing in brick and mortar land, and it came back determined never to go there again. There was also, I believe, a fiasco in which CMSF (?) was rushed to release because of contractual obligations. BFC absolutely doesn't and won't do that anymore. Steve has repeatedly made it clear that BFC, unlike EA some years ago which, despite its vast resources (millions) was nearly destroyed by one bad decision (all eggs in one basket dropped; bad for eggs), yet survived, simply can't afford to be wrong.
 
We can have opinions and argue them until the end of Time, but BFC must ever weigh the risks against the gains, and we, too, must hope Steve et al. continue to make wise business decisions. Saying, in essence, "BFC is like a dinosaur which won't adapt and dooms itself to extinction" seems, to me, to be a huge overstretch. I guarantee you that some very sharp and highly motivated (like to eat, have a place to live, etc.) people keep a gimlet eye on everything pertinent in their industry. BFC has learned the hard way that giving up control is likely a business killer. And what if BFC did go with Steam, but then there's some upheaval which fundamentally alters, disrupts or even destroys Steam? What then? How bright would that business decision have been--as seen from bankruptcy court?! As it stands, BFC creates the product, BFC handles and ships the product, so BFC isn't losing a huge chunk of revenue to layers of middlemen, nor do its products suffer the ignominy of the $5 clearance bin. In fact, CMBO is still for sale at a very respectable $15--for a game released in 2000! There are still people playing it--and new ones discovering the game and buying it.
 
BFC isn't a PC but a Mac (smaller production, but high quality and higher profit margin); it isn't GM but Rolls Royce; it's not Wonder Bread but artisanal bread, to give but a few examples. I can't speak to the useful gaming life of what's on Steam, but I will say that the overwhelming feedback from our members who play many games and of various sorts is that nothing touches CM when it comes to entertainment value and duration per dollar spent. And BFC gives away the demos so people don't have to make the outlays you find so objectionable blind; so they can determine, for themselves, whether this game is for them. Why is it that people don't bat an eye for a $70 FPS which has a play through time of, say, 14 hours, but gag over spending $105.00 (discounted from $135.00 if purchased separately) for the complete CMBN (v 3.12), including CW and MG, yet can play the latter pretty much forever? Which, I ask, is the more cost effective outlay? Nor is it safe to assert that because CM isn't on Steam, that no one knows about it, therefore can't possibly buy the game. In addition to game mags and game sites, which run game reviews and interviews with Steve about every pending CM release, there's this thing called YouTube and some other means called Twitch. ChrisND has done a great deal to raise CM's profile, and people searching for WW II computer games will find goodies like these served up. And ChrisND isn't the only one.
 
1716 views--for a game still in Beta!


 
5250 views


 
4956 views


 
7234 views
 

 
Nor does it follow that these are the same gamers watching these diverse games. Quite the opposite. Gamers very definitely have preferences, some quite emphatic. And for every person who sees one of these vids, how many additional positive marketing events result when someone shares what was seen? Word of mouth advertising is incredibly powerful, and social media have only made it more so. And what you need to realize is that because of its business model, BFC doesn't need massive sales in order to prosper. Would they be nice to have? Sure, but BFC is niche marketing, rather than trying to sell everyone MoH, Halo, GoW or the latest MMORPG for that matter. BFC's business model works for BFC and, by extension, us. BFC has no suicidal impulse at work here in avoiding Steam, and if it needs to change how it does what it does, it will do so and for good, solid reasons based on an intimate understanding of BFC.

On a whimsical note, what's next? A debate on who played Hammurabi via Time Shared acoustic modem first?!
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Bil,
 
I wasn't sure in what formation or configuration the Americans would arrive in, but this one looks like fully deployed in battle array. Combat power writ large. On the positive side, it gives your remaining airpower lots of targets!
 
antaress73,
 
Methinks you misunderstand the nature of warfare. Numerical force superiority certainly helps, as does high tech (when it's working) but is no guarantor of success. The NTC is one of the major reasons the Army cleaned Saddam's clock, and the lessons learned there by the rotating units at the hands of OPFOR were brutal and taken to heart, as seen in the linked CGSC study of lessons learned at NTC. With perhaps the odd exception here and there, the key to American combat effectiveness lies in rigorous ongoing training using everything from a battle plan scratched in the sand with a stick to full-on engagements with MILES gear and live fire training on a simply enviable scale. But ultimately, it comes down to the men (and in some branches women) who must fight the fight. It is upon their professionalism, motivation and sheer aggressiveness, determination and willingness to do what it takes that determines who wins and who loses. It isn't, as they say, the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.
 
Give me such people in inferior equipment over conscripts and some contract soldiers in better tanks but lacking, say, battle commanders able or allowed to show real initiative, worked up from the bottom professional noncoms (not someone who spent six months in a sergeant academy) and the military and  technical skills to maximize combat effectiveness, not to mention keep their fancy toys running properly, and the nominally outclassed and outgunned will mop the floor with them. History is replete with examples of smaller, sometimes tiny (see particularly BG Claire Chennault's comment on that at first link) military forces clobbering the opposition. Flying Tigers. Alexander the Great at Gaugamela. Napoleon at Jena-Auerstedt. Here's a fascinating list of ten more.
 
Rinaldi,
 
Insane, but in a good way! Big Monty Python fan.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Bil,
 
I wasn't sure in what formation or configuration the Americans would arrive in, but this one looks like fully deployed in battle array. Combat power writ large. On the positive side, it gives your remaining airpower lots of targets!
 
antaress73,
 
Methinks you misunderstand the nature of warfare. Numerical force superiority certainly helps, as does high tech (when it's working) but is no guarantor of success. The NTC is one of the major reasons the Army cleaned Saddam's clock, and the lessons learned there by the rotating units at the hands of OPFOR were brutal and taken to heart, as seen in the linked CGSC study of lessons learned at NTC. With perhaps the odd exception here and there, the key to American combat effectiveness lies in rigorous ongoing training using everything from a battle plan scratched in the sand with a stick to full-on engagements with MILES gear and live fire training on a simply enviable scale. But ultimately, it comes down to the men (and in some branches women) who must fight the fight. It is upon their professionalism, motivation and sheer aggressiveness, determination and willingness to do what it takes that determines who wins and who loses. It isn't, as they say, the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.
 
Give me such people in inferior equipment over conscripts and some contract soldiers in better tanks but lacking, say, battle commanders able or allowed to show real initiative, worked up from the bottom professional noncoms (not someone who spent six months in a sergeant academy) and the military and  technical skills to maximize combat effectiveness, not to mention keep their fancy toys running properly, and the nominally outclassed and outgunned will mop the floor with them. History is replete with examples of smaller, sometimes tiny (see particularly BG Claire Chennault's comment on that at first link) military forces clobbering the opposition. Flying Tigers. Alexander the Great at Gaugamela. Napoleon at Jena-Auerstedt. Here's a fascinating list of ten more.
 
Rinaldi,
 
Insane, but in a good way! Big Monty Python fan.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

grunt_GI,

Yes, I did get my metrics crossed up. Probably because I've seen speeds like that on my Internet connection altogether too much!

aleader,

Red Baron, Flight of the Old Dog and multiple disastrous outings--too much to track; won the sector battle but lost the war--with Red Lightning, experiences so traumatic I swore off computer wargames for good. Until a friend moved in, bringing MOO, some huge Star Trek game and PE. Was his weapon dev guy for the first two, then first pundit, military advisor, tyro and pretty good PE player and dev group (not to be confused with DEVGRU) member. An ad on PE got me into CMBO's Beta Demo, for the first CMx anything! I wrote an entire novel on my Amiga, learned to run image processing software and MatLab or something akin thereto. Piddled with 3-D randering and ray trace, digital painting and other cool stuff. A real shame Commodore royally screwed up on the Amiga, for it was simply astounding and inexpensive, both for the rig and the software. There was some talk of marketing the wonderful OS, but they screwed that up, too. The Amiga provided me my first look at the internet--via a browser which showed a a whole four-inch tall segment, a kind of virtual vision block view, if you will.

Regards,

John Kettler

lordhedgwich,
 
Ref  Tali-Ihantala  All that period armor (drool) in a mere three minutes? Shall need new underwear. Permanently. Wow! Talk about spitting range engagements, or are these from foreshortening and the usual need to get everybody in the frame at the same time?
 
Ref Stalingrad  Either my memory is sorely deficient (a distinct possibility since we're talking decades) or this isn't the same Stalingrad film I saw. The one I saw followed a German pioneer unit into the battle. Contrariwise, I do remember this scene. Obviously, the German ATG gunner got lousy die rolls!
 

 
And in this scene from the 2013 /Stalingrad, we can clearly see a technical advisor needed firing--for reasons which should be instantly apparent. Can't speak to the film as a whole though, having never seen it. I will say, though, we need a flying ash and stygian gloom mod. Kind of war movie grim.
 

 
Das Boot  The gold standard of war movies. Came out of the theater wrung out and with a kind of PTSD. Felt like I'd been depth charged! Anglophones need to watch the English subtitled German version, not the (retch) dubbed one. German version clip w/o subtitles.
 

 
Downfall is simply brilliant, with a Hitler depiction clear off the charts. (German with selectable English subtitles)
 

 
 
easytarget,
 
The Thin Red Line drove me, along with my film loving warpig friend, straight up the wall. By the time something finally started happening, we were so deadened by the stultifying travelogue stuff we gave up and walked out. Maybe I'll give it another shot sometime.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Wanted to pass the word regarding an inexpensive ($3) Kindle book on Cold War Russian armor and other mobile weapons, to include SAMs. It's called Red Steel, is by Russell Philips, and it covers from immediately after WW II through the collapse of the SU, with tank coverage through the T-80, SP arty through Pion and MSTA-S and SAM coverage through SA-10. On balance, it's a pretty good book. Except when it isn't. There is a wealth of material, much of which wasn't in the threat docs I had back in military aerospace, so likely reflects post Cold War discoveries. Images are all over the place and confusing to people who aren't familiar with the systems to begin with. For example the acquisition radars for both the Shilka and the Tunguska are shown stowed. The picture of the T-64 is tiny, because the shot is the somewhat iconic one of a column of T-64s going through the TMS-65 jet powered decontam. The T-10 is on its angled war memorial plinth, and there are quite a few pics of AFVs in foreign armies and, in one case, a dead AFV but not obviously so. Two vehicles are represented by 3-view line drawings, which look like they came from an AFV ID guide. There are repeated surprises on what went into service and when, with many AFVs in full service before we started getting threat data (I started in early 1978 and watched developments unfold). In one case, the gap was around a decade.
 
What I found helpful in the book were the enumeration of the various tank model designators, the alphabet soup changes to the baseline and what they mean by way of changes. Pity he talked about the (US Army lingo) Dolly Parton and Super Dolly Parton (think her endowments), but  showed no pic at all. Rather marked appearance difference from baseline T-72s. Also good was the laying out of various protection options for a number of tanks (ERA, applique, Drozd, Shtora--alone or in combination). Again, most of which wasn't in the threat docs. He seems to think that for the T-62 w/ horseshoe armor, the armor is monobloc, when it in fact is spaced and w/o any inserts. He contradicts himself a few times, such as when he claims the SS-12 was the longest range TBM to serve, then later talks about the SS-23, which didn't serve long, but was a real sore point until the Russians killed it, as a gesture of good faith during the INF Treaty discussions. He doesn't realize that the 2 A3 Kondensator (406 mm Russian answer to US 280 mm Atomic Annie) was ever in service when claiming the Pion was the largest SPA to serve. Likewise, he completely missed mentioning the SA-6b (one TELAR and three TELs), the transition between the SA-6 and the SA-11. Some of you may be shocked to discover that certain SPA formations jump strength by 50% in wartime. Gulp. 2S1 is missing its nuclear capability, but you'll never look at FROG rockets the same again. The highest yield setting was a whopping 22 KT (Hiroshima was 15)! Another surprise is that the BMD seen running around in Ukraine with a ZU-23 atop it is NOT a field expedient; it's factory and is not only gun armed but carries two 2-man MANPADS teams--at least as originally intended. I wish he's said more about some of the technical issues, but what's there is pretty good for a mass audience book. Speaking of which, there's a German translation of this due out in February. Amazon's taking preorders now.
 
Since I no longer have Milsom's Soviet Armor 1917-1970 (purloined but may eventually get back), I find this book, especially for the tiny outlay, to be quite helpful. It has tons of tech specs, armor material, , weapon stabilization, gun launched ATGMs, construction details, performance and such goodies as armor slopes, composition and thickness, where available. I recommend this book, but encourage additional checks before presuming something of importance to you is correct.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

sburke,
 
You are clearly not getting it. Causation we can discuss separately. The discretion lies in what I say, how much I say and when and in what manner I present it. At any given time, I'm sitting on a trove of intel of varying sensitivity. Information which I may or may not be allowed to use subsequently, in whole or in part. This information has been and is provided to me as deep background. It provides a context in which I can understand certain aspects of what I receive and, where permitted, judiciously convey certain aspects of that overall view still going on behind the scenes, so as to better inform my readers. It also consists of material on US and foreign weapon developments, US and Allied operations, areas of operations, live fire trials and much else. Whole categories of important-shocking-mind-bending matters of which you likely know nothing. And never will unless you bestir yourself. That's about as far as I dare take this here. You know where to find me should you wish to have an unfettered discussion.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler