c3k

Agreed. The work|benefit ratio seems to fall too low on my threshold. Most (almost all) able-bodied men are able, and in fact do, get out of the way of vehicles. The wounded, frankly, don't matter to me. If they're wounded, and out of the fight, I don't care how else the game treats WIA after that. (Yes, if it takes another soldier out to provide first aid, that should be in.) If tanks roll across fields of WIA, that will not affect the tactical outcome in the CM world. Therefore, I don't want it in. (I also don't want to give an option for cretins to attempt that sort of behavior on purpose.) Thanks, Ken

Oh, I just realized I never addressed the original question in this thread: I hope the Osprey is NOT included in CMSF. I agree with rudel.dietrich that it would be an almost guaranteed kill for the the Syrians. Thanks, Ken

Actally, the IDEA behind the Osprey represents a key improvement in force deployment. Before you get your panties all wadded up, look at the capabilities which separate the Osprey from other aircraft: 1- Lift capacity (15? fully combat equipped Marines. That includes all their field gear ~100lbs per man.) 2- Range 3- Vertical Take-Off and Landing 4- Speed Now, no other aircraft can combine these. What helicopter can lift 15(?) combat equipped Marines? Seems only a CH-53 or CH-46. What are their ranges and speeds? Far less. Etc., etc. Okay, men have died testing a radical new (and EXPENSIVE) aircraft. Please post the number of deaths in the testing of various helicopters, and post about your sadness. Is it perfect? Not even close. Is it expensive? Maybe too much, maybe FAR too much. Shrug. Spears are cheaper than laser sighted, night vision enhanced, full-auto, selective fire, grenade-launcher assault weapons. Yet, you won't debate their relative costs. These kinds of cost debates with an unproven (and some could say not fully tested) item often incudes all the development costs, ignoring any future return on the investment. Am I defending the Osprey? Not really, just defending a new concept against a conventional mindset bias. Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, might I suggest they contact Wendy and ask for her to firmly sew the shadows back on? Regards, Ken (My apologies for any Peter Pan aficionados.)

....or are you "limp wristed"?

....or are you "limp wristed"?

....or are you "limp wristed"?

Dude, that's one very small groin guard. Do well and bring 'em back! Regards, Ken

I'm supposed to READ what these guys post? C'mon, I'm only here for the pretty pictures. Delyn, thanks for pointing that out for me. Regards, Ken

Will Abrams crushing trees be modelled?

Gents, Having looked at the beta videos, a question arose: will the animations be part of the simulation? What I mean by that is, will the actual number of rounds fired in the animations be tracked in the game? Will the number of reload magazines be tracked? When I pull up the info on a squad, will the ammo count match what they've done? Or, is it going to be a bit more abstracted, ala CMBO/BB/AK? And, finally, is each round individually calculated for down-range effects? Thanks! Ken

BF.C, Excellent. Thanks, Ken

Hey, can I hide snipers IN a barrel? On a more serious note, who the hell still uses wooden barrels? Well, other than the near-immortals who craft our favorite bourbons, scotches, and whiskeys. Other than steel oil-drums, I've only ever seen plastic barrels. The difference being the shape. Oil barrels are cylinders with the reinforcing ribs, plastic barrels having the slightly tapered ends. Get to work! Thanks, Ken

Tire smoke???

Hmmm, a couple of thoughts to share: First, which of the barrels will explode? Second, the tire tread pattern is off. It seems to be loosely based on Australian off-road patterns, but asymmetric with no central groove. Obviously, Syrian tire tread patterns follow a different design. Please fix. Hey, it looks great! Thanks, Ken

JasonC, Thanks for proving my point. The Israeli national goals were crippled when 22 casualties (I don't think they were just wounded, BTW) were inflicted on them. That, and internationally broadcast pictures of blood soaked Lebanese grandmothers mourning over maimed children. No more wars will be fought in a media blackout (Hutus and Tutsis notwithstanding). The set-piece battle is a fun mental exercise. But that is all. Any government facing combat against the U.S. should follow a simple formula: sacrifice the unreliable majority of your forces just to keep the U.S. honest and force the U.S. to follow traditional military roles. Take the reliable minority of your forces, put them in civilian clothes, spread them throughout your built up areas, flood them with modern LATW's, and let them attrit the U.S. Heck, after 4 years, you could end up with ~3,000 KIA, 25,000 WIA (to include ~500 amputees whose TV/video/web presence far outweighs ANY other media coverage). Let's not even mention U.S. highway deaths are ~50,000 per year. Yet, losing 750 KIA a year is beyond the ability of a country with 300,000,000 total population to sustain. Why? Because manipulation of perception counts. No more wars will be fought in a vacuum. The U.S. will need to have a "kick down the door" force. After the U.S. has established a presence, then what? Seriously. Regards, Ken

Gents, This is all great, all this force type A vs. force type B using tactics/operations/strategy type Z. I love this talk. But, c'mon. How much of this will be USEFUL in a new conflict? Point 1: US vs. Iraq, 2003 - the initial breakthrough resulted in a total disintegration of conventional forces quite rapidly. Point 2: Israel vs. Hezbollah - Hezbollah NEVER offered conventional forces in battle. The Israeli goals were stuffed. Point 3: How would YOU fight the U.S. having seen the two lessons? The best way to destroy an unconventional force would be to absolutely devastate the area. Destroy every building and man-made object. You know, the "no stone on top of another stone", "salt the earth" approach. Of course, that's not popular with the target population, and given enough video footage of killed/maimed children it tends to lose popularity at home as well. However, that is the advantage of heavy firepower. Now, take geo-political realities, rational goals, and modern media, and put that together with a wily, determined opponent, and you get something like what Hezbollah demonstrated. How does a HEAVY force work now? Thanks, Ken

Wow. This sounds great. Send me a copy of the beta and I'll let you know if it works... Ken

Oh, an addendum to the above. From a propaganda viewpoint one could argue the following: The Bradley was a previously abandoned/lost vehicle. The bad guys captured it, added some spray paint (if needed) so it would APPEAR undamaged. They then staged this UNDATED video. So, without corroborative evidence, we video viewers really don't know. However, if you subscribe to the propaganda view, you must therefore allow the insurgents/enemy agents the ability to capture, transport, and hide a Bradley. THAT is even more damning, IMHO, than sneaking up on an empty Bradley and destroying it. Regards, Ken

Hmm, Yeah, you have to credit them with destroying a Bradley. And, you need to take into account that it was done with quite a bit of daring. My observations having watched the video: 1. The Bradley appears to be undamaged at first, hence, assumed to be operational. 2. The Bradley seems to be unoccupied. The enemy combatant uses the Bradley's bulk to hide his movement from the building behind the Bradley. (I think that red circle highlights a U.S. soldier's position. Perhaps a transient sighting.) 3. The building behind the Bradley therefore probably contains some U.S. elements. The Bradley appears to've been left in an overwatch position, maybe ready to guard that stretch of pavement. 4. There are 3 distinct phases to the video, separated by time-lapse: first the enemy is shown setting two items under the Bradley; at some later time an explosion occurs, characterized by a white/brown cloud and a large flame-sheet and black cloud; finally, some time after the initial explosion, the Bradley ends up surrounded by flames, heavy smoke coming out of it. 5. It seems that automatic fire from the building sprays the area around the Bradley after the explosion, supporting the assumption that the building is occupied by U.S. forces. A reasonable conclusion can only be that a well executed raid, planned in advance (note the video was made and released, the camera must've been placed - no camera shake after the initial filming phase), took advantage of an opportunity to destroy a several million dollar piece of equipment. A morale boosting tactical and financial victory for the bad guys. The Bradley seems to've caught fire from its own fuel which added to the cook-off of its ammo. I would think that would be a total write-off. Regards, Ken

I'd forgotten about camel spiders. The joy of spider vs. scorpion just can't be shared if you haven't bet on it.... Ken

BF.C, Obviously camels scream for inclusion. How could they not be? Think how much easier horse cavalry would be to code if you bite the camel bullet with cmsf. Do it. You know you want to. Thanks, Ken

Cool. I especially like how none of the compass needles (in the upper right of some pictures) are pointing to North. No doubt it's because you've modelled the effect of reading a compass near a large metal tank. (/sarcasm) Okay - fix the compass THEN I'll buy the game... Cheers, Ken

URC, That reminds me of a passage in "Thunder Run". One of the Mi's was moving at what must've been a moderate rate of speed with the turret slewed over towards one side. They went under a highway bridge which, unfortunately for them, was narrower than the M1's gun barrel is long. Think of a dog with a branch trying to run into a doorway. The result was a large sound, confusion, and a spinning turret. Perhaps some smoke as well. The damage was a destroyed hydraulic traverse system. Will that be modelled? Thanks, Ken

Ah, A perfect case of tactics and training and operations coming together and handing your enemy an opportunity. A few rhetorical questions: How many places are ready-made for a C-130 to land? Of those, how many are known as possible sites to the British? Now, let's narrow those down a bit: of those possible sites known to the Brits, how many could be useful? (Who cares about a strip of asphalt near Syria if I'm operating in Basra.) Well, that limits it a bit, but I'm sure there are more unprepared sites than there are runways. Now, how do we use these sites? Do we land C-130's willy nilly across the countryside? Of course not. You send in a patrol and provide an airfield survey. You know, check for obstacles on the ground and along the flight path. Check weight bearing capacities, etc. (Kind of embarrassing to land in a bog.) How often do these surveys occur? How manpower intensive are they? And do you think just anyone is qualified to provide an airfield survey? So, it seems obvious that only a handful of unprepared sites would be used as forward operating bases for C-130's. The conundrum comes from the decision to reuse one of your limited sites without advance warning to the enemy. If you send sweeper teams, the enemy can congregate around the field with SA-7/14's etc. Tough call. If you don't sweep before use - thoroughly - which could take days to accomplish - you may get the ol' land mine in the wing trick. Ooops. If you ignore each site you've previously landed on, you'll soon run out of landing sites. Not a viable option. So, armchair aviators/tacticians: what's the answer? Thanks, Ken