Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Smaragdadler

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    334

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Smaragdadler

    Just discovered a few Challenger 2 Pcts

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I have bought this new book about Leopard 2, I linked above. I would say it's the definite grog bible about this topic. The level of detail and info depth is just amazing. Full German/English Text, many many pictures never seen before, 1/35 scale drawings etc. I don't think there is a better book about this topic out there. It's actually only the first of two volumes. It covers the development of prototypes and all the different versions in Bundeswehr Service + Specialised Vehicles, Ammunition, Markings, Driver Instruction Vehicle and the new developments like 2A4 Evolution, 2A6EX, 2 PSO-UrbObs. The second volume will be available in Autumn 2009 and will cover all Leopard 2 versions in international service (Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, Poland, Finland, Greece, Turkey, Chile, Singapore, Canada, Austria, Norway, Portugal and Switzerland)

    German review of volume 1 with more sample pages:

    http://www.panzer-modell.de/monatstipp/juni09/tipp.htm

    0

    UNCON-IED-UAV for NATO or CMSF2?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Flying IEDs: Is the Threat Real?

    7 2,009

    By Stew Magnuson

    The proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicle technology has brought up questions of how to best defend against them.

    getAsset.aspx?ItemID=14208ababil-2.jpg

    Hobbyists can build rudimentary aerial drones. Model airplanes have been available in toy stores for decades. Meanwhile, dozens of countries have developed their own technology, or are considering starting programs.

    China has developed its own UAV technology and flew its aircraft to provide security at the Olympics last year. In March, a U.S. fighter aircraft tracked, intercepted, then shot down an Iranian UAV that had allegedly strayed into Iraqi airspace, according to press reports. Iran also allegedly provided unmanned aircraft to irregular Hezbollah fighters during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006.

    Such technology in the hands of terrorist organizations has caused some concern. One Air Force general said before his retirement in 2005 that he believed that UAVs may one day be used as an improvised weapon. However, there are skeptics that pilotless aircraft will be flying around with explosive devices strapped on.

    Larry Dickerson, a UAV analyst with Forecast International, said Hezbollah used the Iranian drones for intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance. The technology was more valuable to them as a means to peer down on Israeli positions than a way to kill soldiers. Plus, Hezbollah has large stockpiles of mortars and rockets. Along with being plentiful, they’re a much cheaper means to deliver explosives than a relatively more costly UAV. And they deliver about the same amount of explosives.

    As far as protecting troops, “if you can defend against mortar shells, you can defend against a UAV,” Dickerson said. While they could potentially be more accurate than a mortar, unmanned aircraft are not stealth weapons. They are slow and require noisy propellers. Traditional air defenses, or even a .50 caliber machine gun, should be able to knock them out of the sky, he said.

    Jim Tuttle, director of the Department of Homeland Security science and technology directorate’s explosives division, said DHS has examined the possibility that UAVs could be used as a delivery system for IEDs.

    “That has been considered … but the threat seems minimal from that standpoint because of the payload of those UAVs,” he said at a National Defense Industrial Association homeland security science and technology conference.

    “If you have a Predator, okay. But what terrorist is going to have a Predator?” he said, referring to the Air Force’s medium-sized aircraft. The more ubiquitous smaller aerial drones can only carry a pound or two of explosives. His division is concentrating its efforts on threats that could deliver higher quantities and claim dozens of victims.

    Dickerson said there are concerns that the largest high-altitude, long-endurance aircraft such as the RQ-4A Global Hawk could be outfitted to deliver weapons of mass destruction.

    These aircraft travel at altitudes of 65,000 feet and have demonstrated the ability to fly nonstop from Australia to California. There is concern that one could potentially be outfitted to carry a nuclear weapon. That’s why they fall under U.S. export control regimes. Trusted allies such as Europe or Japan may receive them, but not others, Dickerson said.

    “It is a reconnaissance platform, but it makes people nervous,” he said.

    source: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2009/July/Pages/FlyingIEDsIstheThreatReal.aspx

    What means this for NATO modul? To ask for a blue nuke-UAV would be just saucy.

    For UAV-IEDs we need to see a high-number usage in an actual conflict to convince Battlefront, that it is necessary to implement them.

    But maybe a UNCON-MPRD ("unconventional model plane recon drone" (I just made this up)) would be nice.

    Should come in different versions:

    /strategic/ - plane is controlled off board and sends it spotting data to highest UNCON-HQ (takes long time)

    /tactical/ - there is a on map controller with laptop. To communicate spotting-data goes faster.

    /armed/ - needs on map controller with constant LOS (like a AT-3B Sagger).

    0

    CMBB on CMx2 = no more???

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    So the main title of CMx2 Westfront Late War will be about bulge. What would be the themes of the modules?

    Will there be an extra Hürtgen Forest Module? (don't think so, because it's basically the Bulge "uncut directors edition")

    Maybe a Ruhr pocket module (urban warfare) and a Thuringia Campaign module (with added extra 'what if' stuff to make some fictional Patton '46 campaign?)

    ...ah and there was this Ratte-thingy.

    0

    Timeline for CM Normandy?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    The end of the time line is not depending of a date but of terrain and equipment. CMx2:Normandy will include the whole fighting in Summer 44.

    All that includes aspects which where not present in June till September 1944 will be out of the time line. (new equipment, autumn and winter graphics). Market Garden supposedly makes it just in.

    So "on the ground" the line between first and second full CMx2:Westfront title will be the wooded hills on the German border.

    0

    ww2 games

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    ... but whenever I read some battle during Normandy or the Battle of the Bulge described as "the toughest fighting of the war" or "the bloodiest battle of the war", I think to myself..

    It's worse. Because in the same time, they put Hürtgen under the carpet.

    0

    Tank Battle Observation and Questions

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    The (usualy) 'best' way of engaging an enemy tank with a tank (meaning highest probability to hit the enemy while having the lowest probability to get hit by the enemy) is from a standing hidden (hull down) position with a predefined area (target arc) where the (in-moving) enemy is expected to appear. If you see first - you kill first (post modern blue on red). If you move, your chances of 'first see' go down and you will be seen earlier. That's the gag about 'overwatch' (-> hint).

    If your 'stabilisation equipment' (in CMSF: Damage panel -> '+Targeting' [?]) is gone, 'you' have to move the gun of your tank by hand crankle like in ww2. To fire on the move would then be a waste of time...

    0

    PC-Gamer Review

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    ....

    and Smaragdadler. It's not a time issue. It is a "What interests you?". For example here's what I prefer to spend my wargaming time on:

    WWII >> WWI >> 1980's NATO/Soviet conflict >> Medieval Warfare >> Roman Era wars (including Carthage etc) >> Greek City-State Era Wars >> American Revolutionary War >> Napolenonic Wars >> Civil War >> Vietnam War >> current Middle East Conflict

    Of course it's all about what interest you. The point is, that in wargaming, if something has interested you before, one can asume that you have 'made your homework' (researching what the tec is capable of and how to apply it with your tactics). If you have made that for one 'topic' it is easy to jump in another 'chapter' of that 'topic'. And the 'topic-line' follows a tec-schedule, which HAS a 'time issue':

    'Ancient Style' ('gunpowder tec' has no or negligible impact on tactics):

    Greek City-State Era Wars

    Roman Era wars (including Carthage etc)

    Medieval Warfare

    'Cannon and Musket' (muzzle loader tactics)

    American Revolutionary War

    Napolenonic Wars

    Civil War

    Prussia

    'Early modern' (the machine gun arrives big style)

    WWI

    'classic modern' ('mechanized tactics without rocket tec and electronics)

    WWII

    (Korea)

    'modern' (mechanized with rocket tec and classical electronics)

    Vietnam War

    1980's NATO/Soviet conflict

    post modern (microtechnology arrives and has a big impact)

    current Middle East Conflict

    And it is absolutly correct for a reviewer to assume that some of his readers are not willing to do 'more homework' and want to stay with the 'topic' they know.

    For them the words 'no panzers' are enought to make it clear...

    0
×
×
  • Create New...