gunnergoz

From actual experience, I think communal IQ drops significantly for each half hour spent in committees and meetings...however, I think you got my drift. I suspect there are enough technical weenies in the military to spot such an obvious goof, if it ever indeed happened, and would have straightend out the "old man" in a hurry. On the other hand, if we're talking about congress...well, anything goes. Intelligence was never a prerequisite for public office.

And quite probably the smelliest, as well...

Hard to get past the first sentence when a site describes its contributors as "an elite group." Later on in the Stryker section it poses the question if "The Army may have gotten confused with the LAV-III being 14mm THICK in its construction and it being 14.5mm heavy machine gun protective." I suppose there are military leaders somewhere that are that stupid, but rooms, committees and task forces of them? On the other hand, if Rumsfeld is in some way making money off the Stryker through one of his myriad investments, there may be something to all this...I don't trust him any farther than I could throw him.

What's with most of the turrets being reversed 180 degrees to the rear? Anyone venture an (intelligent) guess? Or know for sure? (Post retreat jokes in the GF please.)

I think that the demand that the MGS be equipped with a 105mm weapon is part of what is leading to its poor showing and possible demise. If the Army had been a bit more flexible and permitted smaller caliber weapons to be tested and considered, a significant weight saving could probably be assured, along with nice-to-have things like more ammo stowage, etc. If the Stryker ATGM units are the primary anti-armor shield anyway, why not use a low-pressure gun in the MGS...or even a breech mounted mortar? I could see a 90-120 mm mortar doing a good job, especially if it was configured with an autoloader and ability to fire over open sights in the direct fire role. The claimed use of the MGS was infantry support, taking out bunkers and buildings, etc so I don't see why they have to cling to that high-velocity 105 tank gun, except that someone really wants a wheeled tank.

If one paid much attention to the Putin-synchronized Russian media, they might conclude that an invasion of Russia by the US is under consideration. Putin has revived the old propaganda tool of distracting people by waving a foreign threat in their face. Guess who the red flag (no pun intended) is? Good old Uncle Sam, that's who. Russian media spends many, many hours each weak lambasting the US: from government, to imperialist agendas, to military bloodlust, political scandals, religious perfidy, etc, etc, the poor Russian people are bombarded with a run of propaganda that would have made Stalin proud. Unfortunately, we don't help much when the administration says things like "We have no plans to invade Iran, but all options remain on the table." Russian nationalists maintain that supporting countries like Syria and Iran is the best way to distract the Americans from their real objective: the dismemberment and occupation of Russia. Hey, I'm not saying that the Russian propagandists are right...only that this is what some people are actually thinking about what the US is really up to. Most forum readers will recognize that the Russian administration is simply trying to distract people from their inability to resolve basic internal problems. Russians (like many of people) are eager to blame someone else for their own problems, so as far as they can see, why not blame the US?

For those fed up with the negativism: "Combat Mission: Enough Alresdy"

Combat Mission: Leadership Under Fire

I could see that being incorporated into the game, but with very limited supplies of AGM's/LGB's on hand. Not something to waste on a "questionmark" target...

Not AFAIK. It's just in the way of a suggestion to the BFC team. I don't want to clutter up the game with civilian "units" if that can be avoided (since I think this thing will be processor intensive anyway) but I do want to see some representation of the effects and to have to plan tactics based upon the issue.

One way to similate civilian (collateral) casualties and to encourage their reduction is to penalize the player for building destruction.

If we model IED's, we'll also have to model the countermeasures...so they won't always work, but then again, the countermeasures may not either. Who sets up the odds? The scenario designer can designate any set of probabilities either way but to make it feel right, the data would have to come from the real world, one would think. This is indeed a real can of worms. Ineresting, but still worms. Such is reality, however.

One possibility, if we are tracking casualties and degree of wounding, might be to automatically evacuate any wounded who is located within a certain radius of the nearest medic or of the company ambulance vehicle. Wounded in teams not brought within those radii by scenario end might be regarded as lost/abandoned or even KIA when everything is tallied. This will make unit commanders think about command radius and the location of the evac/treatment vehicle would matter...other than just being parked out of sight somewhere.

Michael- I think he was writing about 2AD in the Normandy breakout...a book I want to buy myself. AFAIK no one has written only about Celles, though it is mentioned in numerous books about the Bulge battles. If I had time to write myself...(sighs)

So---nobody's heard of Celles? 2nd US Armored vs 2nd Panzer Division? Tanks, tanks, tanks...oh and did I mention tanks, halftracks, SP artillery, etc, etc? I think that one would, er, rock.

Truly, service above and beyond the call of duty. Hats off to ya, mate. Come home safely and soon!

Irrelevant post asking whose grass mod that was.

I'm disappointed that the originator of the thread is disappointed. It's a disappointing world. I don't think the actual game will disappoint, however.

Juan- You're not jellin' man. This is not a complaint thread, it was started as a humor/parody/lampoon/irony thread. Sheesh. Sure ain't the old forum... :cool:

NG Cavscout. I think you have that quote wrong. Don't you mean "We Americans bark at bare libertarians of the world?" (OK I couldn't resist...)

Technology is fine, intel is great, airpower is super, just be sure you have sufficient boots on the ground to do the damn job...

The effect on gameplay, Shirley, will be that players using the M-1A1 can crush abandoned cars liek bug, whereas the Stryker-equipped player will have to adopt a more manoeuvrist policy and fit Monster Truck wheels before driving over the top of them. All the best, John. </font>

Considering grog/dweeb/nerd lifestyles, that 0.000315 ratio is almost enough to go around...

OK, good question...for the sake of the newbies, I'll answer it: There is a fine old tradition of ironic/comedic posts in 3rd person/italic that purport to represent a generic "type" of posting; think mockery, parody and theatre. I throw in alliteration just for fun and ego. We're posting the "flavor" of many posts we've seen grace the forum, perhaps one time too many.

Actually, a B-1 on high-level standby with precision strike munitions isn't too far off of a possibility. It all depends upon the scenario. I could envision situations where the choices left the commander on the scene might be minimal, however, given a "hasty strike" type campaign with assets scattered or otherwise committed (like to protect flanks or trains.) One thing is sure...except for strafing A-10's, none of these things other than helos will be flying that low. Probably won't see anything to represent them on the ground except the FAC.