Amedeo

What about having the option of editing the random force selection in a QB with an interface similar to that of the full Scenario Editor? No point values, no complicate buying system, no rarity factors etc. Just the possibility to edit without constraints the blue and/or red force selection. It would work fine for those who just want to try a specific unit/weapon system against another specific unit/weapon system. It would also lend itself to cherry-picking 2-player QBs. Just agree on a purchase system or devise a personal point-buy system and select troops accordingly. Of course the burden of "calculation" will be entirely on the players and the possibility of cheating is high but... it's better than nothing, isn't it? Opinions? Amedeo

First, it's a book about the 1991 war, so I presume the statement you quote is intended, by the author, to refer only to Desert Storm. Second, in an old discussion on the TankNet forums I remember that a former US officer stated that on all the knocked out M1s trace of DU was found near the penetrations, i.e. they were all lost to friendly fire. This despite the fact that, initially, some M1 kills were credited to Iraqi fire (this also in the official U.S. Army account of Army performance in the Gulf War: "Certain Victory", BTW the book is also freely downloadable here: http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/content.asp ). Regards, Amedeo

According to the NKO directive dated 26 April 1941, the AT Brigade TOE was: 5322 men 120 "AT" guns 16 37mm AA guns 16 HMGs 92 LMGs 718 cars & trucks 165 tractors The AT Brigade consisted of two AT regiments, a minelaying engineer battalion and a motor transport battalion (plus command and service elements). Each of the brigade AT regiments consisted of five 12 gun AT battalions and an AA battalion. Each AT battalion was made up of three 4 gun batteries. Two battalions were equipped with 76mm F-22 guns, two with 85mm 52-K guns and one with 107mm M-60 guns (often replaced in actual use by more 76mm guns). Hope this helps. Regards, Amedeo

I am speechless! This patch was a complete surprise because it resolves some issues I thought BFC was not interested to address (i.e. the blue bar and crappy graphics on some NVIDIA cards). And this plus a host of fixes that improve playing experience a lot... Thanks for the Christmas present! If before 1.11 I was not sure I would have got future CMx2 modules and titles, now I am resolved to buy future releases (with the possible exception of CM:SLOD)... so hurry up with that British module! Regards, Amedeo

I have the very same problem with a GeForce 7500 LE wich, IMHO, isn't exactly a very low end graphic card. And, what is worse, is that until 1.03 patch came SF looked superb on my PC!

Yes, although there's plenty of room for improvement (especially AI improvement)

But not the same versions, and not with the same ammunition. The scenario should be interesting anyway, but I don't think CMSF can accurately recreate battles from the 1991 Gulf War (mainly because, on the US side, most of the "hardware" has changed since then). Perhaps some more obscure engagements of the 2003 invasion could be modelled with greater accuracy. Regards, Amedeo

Speaking of weapons that Syria actually has (or has a reasonable chance to acquire), I'd say: ZSU-23-4 SPAAG BMP-3 IFV T-12 ATG RPO-A launcher (the latter just to have a man portable weapon actually capable to collapse a small building with a single shot )

Sorry wrong thread!

Excellent! Thanks for the replies. Amedeo

Can someone explain what does the disappearance of treated casualties means in game terms? Are they "treated" and then counted as WIA instead of KIA in the final report? Moreover, is it possible for a unit to return on the spot where some of his fallen men still lies, to give them first (well, second, in this case ) aid, or there's a limit on the delay available to start treating wounds? Regards, Amedeo

I see that the Damage Report in the Detail Panel Components shows a maximum of 9 entries. Is this only a limitation to the info available to the player or does actually the game engine model no more than 9 systems per vehicle? If the latter is true we'll end up with unrealistic situations, e.g. an Abrams that cannot have its engine damaged (as every other vehicle in the game, and in RL, can) because of all that advanced weapons, gizmos and gadgets they decided to mount on the tank! Any thoughts? Amedeo

Actually every armour book that describes the BMP-1 tells about the peculiarities of AT-3 reloading. In addition one can find pictures of the actual reloading from the inside in the following books: "Soviet Tanks Today" by S. Zaloga (London, 1983), at page 31 "Otechestvennye protivotankovye kompleksy" by A. Angel'skii (Moscow, 2002), at page 49 Regards, Amedeo P.S. One can clearly see the hatch (here closed) for reloading, directly behind the ATGM rail in this photo of a Chinese BMP "clone":

For what it is worth, I second this opinion. (At least for what concernes modern tactical wargames) Regards, Amedeo

Is it possible to review the kills of a given unit at the end of a scenario? And, if not, wouldn't be great to have this feature back? I think it's an important tool to help discriminate tactics that work from tactics that don't. For example: was that static T-54 destroyed by the 155mm barrage, the Javelin team or the Bradley spraying it with the 25mm autocannon? (it's not a joke, it actually happened to me in a game... it was one of the most replayed moves ever ) Regards, Amedeo

Actually the Maliutka (AT-3) armed BMPs can have the ATGM launcher reloaded from the inside using a small hatch behind the missile rail. The missile's fins have to be extended by hand through the same hatch using a stick. And, for what concernes the 73mm gun autoloader, yes the BMP-1 has one but AFAIK many foreign users just removed it considering it too prone to malfunctions and went with manual reloading. Don't know if this applies to the Syrian Army too, however. Regards, Amedeo

Do you think these lines should be subject to the new relative spotting rules? (i.e. fire and movement coordination only with friendly units "in contact") Amedeo

Judging from the high numbers seen in Iraq of this old Soviet-made AT hand grenade, I wonder whether Red troops should have them in their inventory in CMSF. Regards, Amedeo

Sometimes you order a 2 men RPG team to fire at an AFV only to see that, while the RPG gunner goes to a spot from which he has LOS to the intended target, the other guy (that, unfortunately has LOS from the start) harmlessy empties a whole 30 round AK magazine on the vehicle thus drawing the fire of all the enemy units in the area on such a carefully selected ambush position... on the other hand, you might sometimes want to have the rifle armed guy to shoot before the RPG shot, to suppress the target. Since, I presume, it would be difficult to model the TacAI to make the correct decision, I'm wondering whether a "target main weapon" command would be a worthwile addition to this wonderful game. Regards, Amedeo

Yes, some AFVs seems to be very trigger happy with their coax MGs but use their main guns very sparingly (not to speak about ATGMs). To be honest, I experienced no disasters because of this behaviour but last time I saw it it was literally shoking! I ended up with three BMP-1s and four Strykers confined into a cramped "urban court". In the four or five minutes that this odd situation lasted, the BMPs, in spite of having a clear LOS to take flank shots at functioning enemy AFVs just few metres away, managed to fire only a couple shots with their 73mm guns, although they continued peppering the Strykers with MG fire from the beginning to the end. BTW the Strykers didn't event try to back up or move... but that's another story! Regards, Amedeo

A 125mm armed tank would be hard pressed in penetrating (frontally) an M1A1(HC) or an M1A2 even if armed with the latest 3BM42M Russian APFSDS, and I presume that the Syrian army have no access to something newer than 20 years old designs like the 3BM42 or the 3BM26. The Kontakt-5 ERA equipped Syrian tanks are the only ones that might have a chance against armour piercing 120mm ammunition. But only if in CMSF US tanks are mainly equipped with M829A1/A2 APFSDS rounds. The M829A3 should typically go through even K-5 equipped T-72s. BTW, is the 105mm gun on the Stryker MGS able to fire the best 105mm APFSDS round (the M900) like the latest batches of the M68 gun mounted on the M1 tank or is it restricted to fire the less capable (and less hot) M833 round? Regards, Amedeo

Perhaps I didn't correctly understand what you wrote but did you say that a TOW ATGM impacting on the ground near a fully functional T-72 caused it to explode? This seems a bit strange (at least). I can imagine that a warhead exploding overhead (maybe hitting a tree or a near building) an unbuttoned T-72 might send a few sparks inside that, in turn, might ignite a propellant case, but... Would you care to elaborate more on this "incident"? Regards, Amedeo

Just a nitpick: the folding stock version of the AKM is the AKMS not the AKS. Moreover, wouldn't be nice to see also the original denomination for Russian weapons along with NATO codes? Regards, Amedeo

Am I wrong or, with some visual modding, the Red vs. Red feature of CMSF will allow to simulate some of the Soviet-Afghan war clashes? The BTR & BMP supported regular troops toting AK-74s and other "modern" (for the '80s) stuff are there, as well as the AKM & RPG-7 armed militia. If the editor is able to handle reasonably "rough" terrain I think the conversion is just there... Comments?

Although I'm sceptical (euphemism) about most of what (probably bona fide) the interviewed veteran said, it's worth noting that according to the Kursk Data Base used in the KOSAVE studies (see here ), there were ten KV-2 heavy tanks operating with the Voronezhkii Front units in July 1943. Regards, Amedeo