[Strykers denied near-term active defense to protect Raytheon contract]

hmm. googling finds

- TROPHY reportedly weighs 1/3 of a stryker's slat armor, or 1/5 of reactive armor

- RPG-29's meant to penetrate reactive or slat armor, aka an active standoff defense seems to be the next counter

- the tactic i wrote of multiple RPG's means even with RPG-7, firing a group at the same point is a way to penetrate armor that would withstand a single RPG. not multiple at different points on the vehicle but multiple at the same point, most accurately done by firing from the same point. will TROPHY defend against that?

again, i don't know arming range, fire control, maintenance, etc so no opinion. just noting what google finds

[Strykers denied near-term active defense to protect Raytheon contract]

one anti-AFV tactic is fire an RPG group, very possibly with one or more RPGs leading the rest. does trophy's shot column work against this?

fielding a trial seems reasonable enough logistically. how reliable/rugged/etc is trophy? aka how well would it scale up into large-scale use?

say there are too many friendlies/civilians/etc nearby so troops want to switch trophy off, or better to have it active only in an arc? is this ability part of trophy or can trophy be easily modified to do so?

i have no axe to grind. i'd just like to know more about the system before forming an opinion about it or its politics

[Are the battles real enough]

Originally posted by Jack Ryan:

Having played CMBB for a while now and seeing some parts of battles last for up to 1/2 an hour is this realistic when you compare it to other 'realistic' war games such as operation flashpoint[ofp] where a firefight is over within 5-10 minutes.

operation flashpoint's a first-person shooter simulating squad-level combat

as others have noted, equivalent-sized units in CMBB - a squad, vehicle, crew-served weapon, etc - rarely actually fights for longer than that in a given scenario

[Laws of war and the new century]

Originally posted by Jeff Gilbert:

In response to Elementalwarre:

You have just changed the mission. The reply I gave deals with most [not all] Recon missions, the "what if" you propose deals with a Direct Action [DA] mission. Different set of rules ...

I will give a more thourough reply when my work load slows down some ...

don't know if the workload's any better but i'll change the scenario to still be recon: say your team's observing activity at a base, but they find a gas-tipped missile being prepped for launch. say you've reported and are awaiting a reply when a shepherd and his son happen upon your hide

now what? it's breaking news, so to speak. it needs a response soonest whether by your team or by air assets your team guides in or by something else...and there are two bonafide noncombatants you're holding

[Laws of war and the new century]

Originally posted by Jeff Gilbert:

Here was our take on it ... the 1st situation posted deals with coming into contact with an enemy patrol and one enemy soldier surrendering ... bottom line ... mission blown, compromised, game over ... get out. Do NOT kill the POW, do not take him with you, drug him and depart the area.

2nd situation, discovered by child. Again, game over, compromised ... call for exfil, take child with us to exfil site and leave him/her there. Again, do NOT kill non-combatants unless they violate that status.

ok, exfil if POW, combatant or not

sounds to me that assumes your side has resources/time to redo the mission or assign your task to other deployed units

say your team's sighted the preparing-to-launch weapon of mass destruction that's THE top priority target for the operation, but is still doing target recon let alone deploying to attack. your opponent still doesn't know you're there, aside from your prisoner(s)

now what do you do?

i say a problem with the traditional laws of war is the possible asymmetries between resources needed for an attack vs the attack's probable effects vs a reaction's possible side effects. i think rules created for nationalistic wars simply don't fit armed conflict in general well at all

[WHY ARE WARGAMERS SO FRIGGIN' PISSY?]

er. just to be boring, i'll merely comment on IMHO 'why wargamers are so friggin' pissy'

if you even try a wargame, you're already looking for more realism about historical events/objects than most people ask from games

if you actually prefer wargames, you may well -demand- historical veracity

more realism often means more attention to detail. more detail means more rules. detailed rules means deciding what's correct because the game design often must choose between conflicting authoritative sources

that means the design's often subjective. presto! instant argument, just add free time

look, i wasted time posting this because i was waiting for a turn to compute, ok

[Morality]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SFC Matrix:

I don't condone the shooting of innocent civilians, but I seem to hear alot of opinion from someone who doesn't do alot of shooting.

(snip)

I like the fact that you have an informed opinion, but unfortunately it doesn't hold alot of water with a vet like me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SFC Matrix, some civilians have been shot at. i've been caught in a firefight with full-auto assault rifles on both sides. i shot my way out and swore to never be that close to war again. i very clearly remember what i felt. ease off, ok?

is morality a luxury for a policeman too? the next time police face terrorists with hostages, i hope not

i realize i'm trying to be objective and abstract about something which is damn harsh and whose details can kill you. maybe a scenario gives a better feel for what i'm trying to say:

say there's a US marine patrol in lebanon, early 1980's. they're caught in a crossfire between militias. an APC is hit, brews up and kills the crew before they can bail

the US commander does not know which group hit the APC. it's a running firefight, several groups chasing each other and civilians everywhere. until the APC was hit, no fire seemed to be even close to the patrol

regardless of ROE, who should the US commander now fire at? everyone he sees who's armed? that's a clear rule but may only convince all sides to cooperate in killing his patrol

should his patrol hold and fire? bug out? how does the commander know if a given civilian is helping a given group or just going home with water?

on the other hand, if a militiaman had been more careful with target ID, maybe his group would not risk getting hosed by US forces

hope that makes my viewpoint clearer

[Morality]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Carter:

Modern war is pretty much no holds barred. I could see that it would be very dangerous if you stopped to think about morality on the battlefield.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i strongly disagree for most low-intensity conflicts (LIC). LIC fighting is frequently around friendly or neutral civilians -and soldiers-. achieving the intended goal while fighting under those conditions means being -very- careful about where bullets go. that's anything -but- no holds barred

[Morality]

(lots snipped out before and after this)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SFC Matrix:

You're raised with them or your not, and when you are in a bad situation, you will hope the morals you were raised with will kick in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SFC Matrix, please reread what i posted earlier

i favor the idea of an ethics test, but as i've said elsewhere i don't know of a provably effective scientific test, and i want kids to learn -before- combat

i'm not talking about trying to figure out the right thing while under fire

i'm talking about demonstrating that you place your country's welfare above your own before being allowed to vote or hold public office. a way that may do this is by serving your country. i realize service does not give someone a well-developed sense of ethics and if anything may severely test them. it's simply a suggestion made by heinlein which i think may serve to show what someone's priorities are

note it's a -test-, not an education

[CNN special on urban combat]

this sunday, aka 7/22, 10pm eastern

yes it's only an hour so they can't show all that much

yes it's cnn so i expect sound and video bites, not the depth possible if they could assume a knowledgeable audience

yes it's apparently looking at a training exercise simulating a village held by OPFOR, not a city block

but what the heck, it might still be interesting

[Morality]

carter - whoa! how did you infer support for mob rule from what i wrote?

i have criticized (mostly) unrestricted democracy

i have suggested the same test given in Heinlein's Starship Troopers for the right to vote or hold public office

i have -not- said what i support

read heinlein? nah, i haven't - aside from every anthology i could find, every novel and quite a few essays. if anything i'd say he was anarchist a la bakunin - even more individualist than libertarianism

i suggested compulsory service because the US has a mandated right to vote for almost everyone who's over 17

the Starship Troopers society only gives the right to vote or hold public office to successful -volunteers- for civic service, -not- everyone

big difference there, i believe

as it happens, i prefer heinlein's idea. i only suggested required service beyond a certain age because the US confers a mostly unrestricted right to vote beyond a certain age. unless that right changes, requiring demonstrable responsibility seems to me a clear corollary

IMHO natural rights are those a person has if no other people affect them, ie no society. to the extent a society constrains a person's behavior to less than what they could do alone, the society infringes on their natural rights

that definition obviously has limits - people generally use -some- ethical framework for dealing with one another peacefully, being a member of a society seems to require some constraint on rights, immature people generally have restricted actions, etc - but i think that's where rousseau started from

MajorH - thank you for indulging us in a thread that's WAY off-topic by now. feel free to tell us to squabble via email instead!

[Morality]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SFC Matrix:

High School, Grade School, doesn't matter, they're just kids. Its the kids just out of High school who bother me on the subject of morality and war. I tell them to get a video of what happened in Somalia and I'll explain to them in detail what happened. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

a tangent - just saw the trailer for Black Hawk Down, the film version of the book by that title. here's hoping the movie's no rosier than the book!

anyway - 'they're just kids'? sorry, i -cannot- agree

for one thing, look at what we ask of them. in the US, once you're 18 you can vote or join the military. big responsibilities, which IMHO means 'just kids' should have a bit more developed morality than whatever pop culture throws at them

for another, i say it's entirely possible for kids to have a well-developed sense of ethics - not just what's right, but much more importantly -why- an action's moral. i say it's possible for kids to do so without enduring a life-threatening moral dilemma.

lastly, i say i'd much rather have kids learn -before- they might legally vote or kill

as for 'involuntary servitude' - if you want power i say you should demonstrate responsibility to use the power wisely. IMHO a US citizen can claim rights without accepting corresponding responsibilities

how is that moral, -regardless of the constitution or other current US law-?

[Morality]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by minmax:

No this program would not be popular with teens but what makes teens today happy?

They would moan and groan and cry about their precious freedom. Freedom is not valuable until it is threatened and or taken away. Maybe it would piss these kids off enough that they would get involved in politics and elect officials to get rid of this harebrained scheme. All the better. Take a look at the stats of people under the age of 20 who vote. Its appalling. The best way to change the world is with a vote not a bullet.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

minmax, here's another stab at this argument:

- americans have the right to vote when we turn 18

- corollary of power is responsibility

- a vote is power

- to demonstrate that a citizen is responsible enough to vote, they should demonstrate that they can place their society's needs above their own

- a suggestion for how to demonstrate this is that they should serve their society for some period of time in whatever capacity the society needs

if americans have a guaranteed right to vote, our society should have a demonstration that we can vote in the society's best interests

whether kids learn civics or not, we currently have at best dubious proof of the theory without some practice

as it is, we have no check or balance on the right to vote. i'm not at all sure that uninformed, uninterested universal suffrage is what the US founding fathers had in mind, even if they did design a republic instead of a democracy

[Morality]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by minmax:

Gyrene,

I agree with the stereotype people have of Marines in particular and the military in general. I came to the realization that the 'protected' may abhor violence but they will holler for a military when the poop hits the fan.

I made good grades in college and had some very intellectual discussions with people who did not neccesarily support the idea of a military. I gave them the poem that talks about things in terms of that veterans garuntee things like freedom of speech, press, religion, and protest. They understood that their luxury of opposition to the military is assured by the military.

People are funny they don't like those who garuntee their most basic rights. In a sense I believe it is guilt. I have always stated that all Americans should give up two years of their lives at a minimum to give back to a nation that gives them so much. Not neccesarily a draft but something like Roosevelt's NRA with CCC camps and public service. I think working for the benefit of others you may never know is a common theme for a voluntary military and something most younger Americans don't get in their education or jobs. Well, that is about my two cents and a few dollars.

Keep the faith...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

that's exactly what the -book- starship troopers advocates. too bad the point was mutated by the movie into voluntary -military- service. also too bad that so many only read the book or see the movie and think author robert a. heinlein was some kind of fascist

gyrene - i agree actions over time can change people's minds. however, i don't think there's enough people around to give most others the time to change their mind. at least in the US, most people now alive

- have only experienced peace - heck, most people get no closer to intentional force than a bar brawl

- have not been in the military

if they also do not understand that peace is maintained by more than good intentions, how long will the military be left to work on "focusing its energy on doing its duties as well and honorably as it can"?

OTOH, while i disagree with US president bush on many things, i'm glad his administration is proposing more money for armed services pay, benefits, and maintenance. about time!

[TACOPS 4: always from BATTLEFRONT?]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MajorH:

Not soon.

The Army will have it first in the early fall. The retail version will follow by two or three months.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the additional features you list in the thread will have me screaming with frustration by then

however - MajorH, didn't anyone tell you how to hit the christmas season? by then you'll miss most of it

of course, i'm not all that convinced that a wargame as solidly professional as TacOps need care much about mass market timing

[Morality]

re Lt Grossman's interview: hmm. so unless you're supervised you'll be vulnerable to desensitization from violent TV/games/etc. well, if you're an adult it's ok

yeah right

IMHO it depends on your existing real-life experiences/beliefs/personality when vicariously experiencing violence, -no matter what your age is-. i don't see how someone who's past a certain age is somehow necessarily more mature, but that's the legal definition our society follows

sorry, i don't know what definition to use instead. i don't know a coming of age ritual that's useful in current western society, but i'm pretty sure reaching a certain age isn't enough

[Morality]

hmm. any suggestions on how to talk to people who won't even -think- about violence? i mean that literally, as in they won't even talk about self-defense or first aid

idealism doesn't mean avoiding reality. i believe that wholeheartedly but heck if i know how to get some people to, well, deal with life as it is, not only as they want it

[Any way CM2 could support Applescript?]

Originally posted by karch:

Just curious if BTS had thought about adding any scripting capabilities to Combat Mission. This would really help out with creating tools to help automating the opening, playing and renaming of pbem files as well as possibly creating an app to play movies back to back automatically.

sounds more like you want PBEM to be easier and some way to stitch movies together, not scripting per se

[Any way CM2 could support Applescript?]

Originally posted by Freak:

The OS X question is what concerns me. Maybe not so much concern, but, with OS X looming. I am excited about OS X and its stability and sweet UI. But I most likely will not switch to OS X for a while. At least until there are lots of apps for it. I just hope that CM2 and CM1 will run on OS X. I anticepate running CM on OS X under OS 9 emulation and I am hoping to run CM2 on OS X (carbon I believe it is). Also another point to mention is I am not sure what rave (the 3d api) will become of on OS X. I hope BTS is considering OpenGL for its future 3d api choice for OS X. I think Apple made OpenGL a serious part of OS X therefore OS X will run OpenGL based games quite well.

hmm. please note

- carbon is definitely -not- The Growth Path for mac os x. cocoa is the future. especially given the work needed to port from mac os to carbon, IMHO going straight to cocoa makes more sense

- opengl runs notably faster on mac os x than on 9, so yes, opengl's a big deal for mac os x

- using codewarrior to port between x and windows is decidedly nontrivial right now. unfortunately, there are no alternatives yet - writing for mac os x means codewarrior or projectbuilder (PB), but PB's mac os x only

so like i mentioned when mac os x public beta came out, i hope BTS concentrates on CM2 proper, not porting to mac os x. of course, i'm assuming CM2 ships within a year. if it's much later then cross-platform development with x as one of the targets should be easier by then

[LAV-AGS on the cover of Popular Mechanics]

Originally posted by Cavguy:

Remember, the LAV-3 (or whatever gets finally approved) is the INTERIM vehicle.

1) The $70 billion over 10 years is for the Future Combat System(FCS, not the LAV-3. The LAV is getting $4 billion over 5 years for the IBCT. The army is betting the bank on the FCS being a revolutionary new vehicle with gee-whiz cool technologies that will enable it to be 20 tons, fast, deployable, lethal, and (no kidding) invisible. The army is spending $3b this year to move the technologies from the lab to the field.

2) There was a competition/demonstration between many makes of light armored vehicles that included the LAV-3, M113A3, M8 Buford, Stingray, Commando, and some other similiar vehicles. Most all armor guys would pick the M8/M113 Combo. However, I speculate that it was not picked in order to give the IBCT a common chassis which reduces logistical overhead, a key requirement for the IBCT.

Many people seem to be confusing the LAV with the FCS. They are VERY different.

my mistake, of course you're right about the costs - i was remembering the longterm cost, not LAV costs

certainly, LAV's not the FCS. yes, logistics demands mean common chassis is a huge advantage, ditto wheels to limit fuel needs

i'm still skeptical about wheels being better for any reason aside from logistics, but ok, LAV's better than nothing

[LAV-AGS on the cover of Popular Mechanics]

Originally posted by MCab:

I think the LAV is not suitable for the job they want. If I'm not mistaken, it's got a high profile. It's wheeled, so cross country mobility won't be as good as tracked. Therefore, it can't provide a mobile defense, especially without stabilization. Also, since it doesn't have stabilization, you can rule out the effectiveness of a spoiling attack while on defense.

Also, it's underarmored, so it'll be a coffin in close terrain. An RPG would make short work of it.

Do they plan on making these airborne? If so, then the high profile will probably get in the way.

Whatever happened to the Stingray?

This all seems to be another budget cut attempt.

ah, no. at least, DoD's estimating $70 billion, or they were when i last looked before the holidays

70 billion ain't pocket change. yes, having some light armor's better than none, but there's a proposal to upgrade M113 APCs instead for quite a bit less

has there ever been a test series comparing the two?

IIRC, the LAV are to get armor kits which withstand RPG hits. how that helps their wheels, i dunno, but at least an immobilized LAV may 'just' bounce around instead of ripping open under RPG fire

[CM Artillery is too slow!]

michael emrys - yeah, every meter. team has to stay in practice, you know. what better way to practice than under combat conditions

admittedly i'd think CM would sim gun movement by some delay at startup before actually moving, then a delay when they get there

however, seems like CM is instead making the actual move take as long as the whole action. yeah, at the rate they move seems like the team could grow moss on the gun

[CM Artillery is too slow!]

let's assume russian ww2 arty's not too different to compare to german & western allies' arty

i bet CM's time is the real time to move a gun that's ready to fire from one position to another and be ready to fire again. you

- call it in,

- undo whatever's holding the gun in place

- pack up any shells,

- get your people ready to move the gun,

- move the gun,

- position it as ordered,

- do whatever's needed to hold the gun in place

- get some shells ready

- report in as ready to fire

no doubt bullethead or others can describe in a lot more detail, but personally i think moving a damn heavy object 50 meters in 25 seconds is possible but pretty quick even if the crew's ready to pull/push a gun that's ready to move

[Modern Combat Mission]

from prior threads on this, problems with doing current warfare include

1- range of modern guns requires allowing larger maps

2- modeling helicopters/close support aircraft. since these are much more tightly integrated now they shouldn't be the semi-random flights CM currently has

3- communications/sensors/ECM

with modern weapons' firepower, IMHO relative spotting would also have to work before trying this

[BACK IN STOCK???????]

schrullenhaft, madmatt: thanks!

to be sure i can replay other's movies, i download and keep all versions. otherwise of course i just play the latest