c3k

Flotation. MMP. All that. Getting more torsion bars per side, as well. Plus, it looks cool going over bumpy ground. Chicks dig that.

If you get a savegame, let me know. Otherwise, I'll poke at it later and see if I can randomly recreate it.

So, is the issue whether the 25mm ammo is ABHE or HEDP? Or, is the issue that acquiring 25mm ammo becomes 40mm ammo?

The detail, and verisimilitude, is uncanny. Thanks for posting these. (And too bad about that Jagdpanther. )

This is how they plan to take back the coal mines of the DonBas. No, this is not the prototype...these three men will do it all! Balls. Big balls like lumps of coal. Or something. But, yeah, totally looks like a trainer for firing on the move. A cable in front, a cable in back.

I'll take a look. Do you have any, err, specific information, or is this just =any= US squad in a Stryker?

Well, if they drank vodka all morning and then played, with just airsoft they'd never feel it. Gotta Rus up and use the lead or steel. In Russia, strikeball play YOU.

The suppression meter will go up when a hit occurs. Now, does that mean that they perform worse? I think so. A test or three would be in order...

EXACTLY!!! Yeah.

If that unit STARTED with Smoke (Say it had 100 HE and 12 Smoke) then there is a possibility that your HE mission used up the Smoke. Don't ask. Really. Sigh. Okay. The last 12 HE rounds will ALSO be the 12 Smoke rounds. The 100/12 round count is really "100 total, of with 88 must be HE and the last 12 will be either HE or Smoke, depending on the mission which gets to the 12 rounds". Why is it that way? Because that's the way artillery worked in the Dubba ya dubba ya The Big One. And the next one, too. Sigh.

And that attitude is why Steve is afraid to even enter the Beta penthouse when the parties are going on. You've got IanL standing out front, arms crossed, chest pumped out, saying, "None shall pass!" I've tried to bring about change, but I'm afraid my efforts were far too meek.

Japanese Type 10 does NOT cost half a billion per copy. The R&D phase DID cost several billions. However, chunking out each additional tank is only a few million per. (Talking dollars, not yen. ) As in all things fiscal, it all depends on how you amortize the cost. Or which accountant you pay.

Having played @Bil Hardenberger in an AAR and watched all of his other ones, I can attest to the fact that Bil hits more than just nails smack on the head. If your tank even peeps out a little bit...he's there with a hammer. Sigh. The worst part? How polite he is about it.

^^^ Fixed that for you. UK, France, and Germany have been emasculated. (Rough numbers: UK, 249; France, 406; Germany, 543 (a lot (greater than half?) are not ready for combat due to maintenance issues. I don't have the link at hand.) Combined, they have less 1,000 combat-ready tanks. (That assumes that the UK and French numbers represent combat-ready.) Your other points? Yes, Russia is trying to gain an increase in proficiency, as well as in equipment. It is better than it was.

I disagree. I think Russia lags in training. Russia lags in keeping a trained force in uniform and having low-level initiative rewarded. But, I'm glad they lag in those areas. Call me biased.

Sure, it looks cool. But wouldn't it be more fun to have the USAF deploy squadrons of remote-controlled aircraft and perform mini-fighter sweeps? I mean, we could enlist model makers to create fleets of P-51s or something, arm 'em with .22s (or even BBs and compressed air), then send 'em aloft. (Sorry. Got carried away there. Thankfully, I refrained from mentioning my idea for creating sub-scale F-35s and finding midgets (dwarfs? WTF is the PC term these days? Little people?) to fly them.) (Oops. That slipped out.) In a serious vein, yeah, there's got to be a quick, inexpensive, way to knock down the cheap drones. First, you've got to know a drone is there. 2nd, you've got to identify it (is it a friend or foe?) 3rd, determine if it is a threat. (Hey, if it's over THERE, do I need to jam it, shoot it down, or otherwise degrade it?) 4th, deal with it. (Laser? Zaaap!) 5th, find out where it came from and kill everyone involved in its launch and data collection/dissemination. The article gives a system which takes care of step 4. A second or two (or less?) of laser dwell time should knock out most consumer-grade drones. The rest of the steps need to be addressed. Of course, repeating step 4 endlessly does not solve the problem of enemy intel/recce activity. (And harassment.) Step 5 is what will take care of that. Maybe you want that one drone to continue to transmit data/receive commands while you geo-locate the launch system/command system?

I'm willing to bet that your statement will still be true when you wake up tomorrow. Back to testing...

Sorry for the delay. I'm deucedly embarrassed, but my intern was a bit slow. I've castigated her and ensured she understands how perilously close she has come to having to seek other employment. The TZF12a monocular sight, as installed in the G model the OP has shown us, had 2.5x and 5x magnification. 28^ field of view at 2.5x (and half that at 5x). I'm not sure where my recollection of 1.7x came from. I'm having my intern produce a series of flashcards, and hand-built 1:48 scale models, of all the WWII AFVs and we shall commence a campaign of spot-quizzing later this afternoon. Dreadfully sorry about the mix up.

My Jentz is not at hand, and my intern is otherwise engaged or else I'd tell her to scamper off and get it for me, but I thought the Panther had a dual magnification telescope for the gunner? A low mag (1.7x?) and the higher mag (5x?). Hmmm... I think I shall ring the bell and have that book brought to me. As to the situation that the OP mentioned, sometimes odd things happen... I'd look at crew soft-factors. I'm pretty sure that lower quality crews are not as able to utilize specialized equipment as well as higher quality crews would.

My understanding was that there was friction between Armored Forces and Army Ground Forces. (I may have just butchered their actual titles. Bureaucrats everywhere are screaming. ) McNair (AGF guru and commander) wanted homogeneity over all else. Doctrine (incorrectly) called for Tank Destroyer Command to deal with enemy armor and for tanks of Armored Forces to romp about in the hinterland, routing enemy HQs and artillery. When the 76mm upgunned Shermans were pushed upon the AGF (by the Ordnance Board? Gah. Ask the Bureaucrats), the actual Generals were asked about them, prior to the invasion. No one wanted 'em. Then, they met Panthers. (The Tiger introduction had been done in Tunisia, but clearly wasn't impressive enough at the time.) The number of Panthers were a surprise... That's when they (the combat commanders) began clamoring for every 76mm-gunned Sherman they could get. There was plenty of blame for myopia to go around. Starting at McNair, and working down, only a few "visionaries" saw the need for more gun. Thanks to them, the 76mm Sherman was ready. (And the same goes for the Brits and the wonder of the Firefly.) The Pershing (M26) was in design well before the invasion, specifically to mount a Tiger-esque gun in a "medium" tank. This also explains why the various tank destroyers always had a gun which was one step better than the Sherman. 75mm Sherman vs. 3 inch TD. Next, the 76mm as a better gun than the 3". When the Sherman got the 76mm, the TDs had the 90mm. "Shermans shoot Germans: Tank Destroyers destroy tanks," would be an appropriate motto for US Army doctrine up through late '44/early '45. ("Doctrine", not actual use.)

Every snowflake is uniquely instanced as they occur. CM starts with a microscopic airborne particle, and then simulates super-cooled water molecules accumulating around it. Obviously, the H2O molecule's propensity for a 6-sided structure is modeled. At the sub-atomic level. (Charles is using some string theory here, I believe. 11 dimensions and all that.) Next, the flake grows. It's terminal velocity, interaction with other snowflakes (always giving each other safe space, naturally), updrafts, random motions, and various other aerodynamic effects are all modelled...in real time, as they fall. By the time you see the snowflake on your screen, a veritable epoch's worth of history has already been accumulated...for each one. It's no wonder a setting of "heavy snow" can slow down those of you with lesser computers. Or, it just needs better optimization. I prefer the previous hypothesis.

aaaaahhhh. Must try this....

That’s a dual mount. Cool.

Let me correct that for you: "March [sic] and still nothing [sic] happend [sic]...that the outer boards have seen." I'd like to tell you about the good times and partying that the beta testers have been having! I'd like to...but I can't. We've been keeping the latest iteration to ourselves. We've set up a secret cabal with the sole purpose of misdirecting Steve. He keeps asking, "Guys, is it working or is it broken?" We giggle and laugh, cut our eyes at one another, then select someone (usually sburke, because he's best at this sort of thing) to reply, "Steve, sorry, dude. This one is like totally borked. My panzerschrecks fire backwards." Then, to much laughter and back-slapping, we get back to our epic LAN battles. When Steve gives us a new build a week later, we give stern pronouncements about how we'll dig into it. Then we delete it and get back on with the gaming. It's been totally stable and fixed for about a year. We just don't want to share. (Most of that was satire and sarcasm. Except the part about @sburke.)

Thanks