c3k

Thanks! I'm not talking about stripping a box off and using the resulting hole, if any, as a point of entry for a killing round. I'm trying to get the effects of non-killing rounds modelled as they degrade the tank's fighting ability. The doghouse: what happens if I put a .50 caliber round into it - straight on from the front? A hail of HMG fire may have an effect: is the effect worth considering? (If the HMG shatters a vision block, but the TC just rotates his ring to use another vision block, why model it?) If the effect is worthwhile - loss of external comms - HOW would it be modelled? Command delay? Night time ops: has the driver's vision been addressed? (I'd love to see an Abrams blunder about, knocking all sorts of things over ) Thanks, Ken

JasonC, I agree with your points 1 through 4, above. Now, here's another possibility: I'm a mean SOB on defense: I put a pair of ATG's in a reverse slope position, and I just want to hit one or two enemy vehicles and then pull out. While I'm waiting for the attacker to close the range, I'm getting that valuable intel. I would enjoy that scenario from BOTH sides. As defender, it's a test of nerves. How long should I stay? As attacker, I've got no idea what I'm facing: is that incoming aimed fire meant to fix me while I get counterattacked? Or is it just harassment? Should I prepare a set-piece attack, or rush an element forward? How much time do I have in the campaign? Perhaps it's not enjoyable to you. Michael Dorosh posted a nice AAR (that picture's worth a thousand postings ), which demonstrates an operational envelopment. I think CMC would be the appropriate level for that. If, however, any enemy forces were within the 2x2 squares transited by the manuevering force, I'd want the option of a CM:BB battle. Again, I enjoy very lopsided battles. I also enjoy the total blind intel aspect of a 2x2 grid. I never know what I'm facing unless I've developed intel through other sources. Having massive death-star stacks of units sweeping a 2x2km grid is unrealistic. I hope that logistics, road-net congestion, and command delays would prevent that, as well as susceptibility to ranged fires. That would seem to mimic real-life limitations. Regards, Ken

flamingknives, Thanks, been browsing pictures and I cannot find ANY which show ports or nozzles anywhere on the body. So, the rocket assist may have been a dream idea, or an early development later dropped. However, several pictures -undated- show 4 tail fins, pop-out style like the canards, on the tail instead of the 8 fin spinning ring. Is that a difference between a submunitions carrier and a unitary warhead round? Hmmm, I'm thinking it would be better for me if someone could ship me examples of each, with an appropriate firing platform. I'd post the results of any firing trials I'd perform. Thanks, Ken

Steve, Thanks for the info. I am not sure if I understand: WILL individual systems be damaged, or is it an, as yet, unused capability of the new game engine? And, if systems vulnerabilities are coded in, could you give us any information on that? It seems that each of the boxes on a vehicle have a function: as they are degraded, damaged, or destroyed, that funcionability should likewise suffer. That opens up a LOT of areas. I'm not sure how germane they are to the game, however. Essentially, it comes done to a question of damage modelling fidelity. I'd like to be able to call down some fire (of whatever type) which I know will not destroy a vehicle, but which will DEGRADE it enough so that my other forces will then have an opportunity to destroy it. Thanks, Ken

So, I'm playing as a Syrian. I find a 14.5mm machinegun team. (Hmmm, what is the heaviest caliber machinegun in the Syrian arsenal?) I use my team to spray down the lead Abrams, frontally. Sure, they're toast, but glory for the motherland and all that... Anyway, will the game track the possibility of damage to the various Abrams boxes and scopes? Or, is the Abrams impervious to anything man-portable? (My next question would be about an RPG hitting a sensor. ) What about the Stryker? Thanks, Ken

flamingknives, I agree that the link to the Excalibur cross-section could be an artist's concept: that it has little bearing on the real round. That's why I'm trying to find a real picture of one. Spinning fins: again, agreed that spinning the whole round with fins would be highly parasitic. My question is whether the round is de-spun from the beginning; do the fins continue to spin; do the fins help to de-spin the round? Thanks, Ken

Gents, I am wondering about the ballistic protection afforded to all the modern communications and targeting gear festooned on and about the M1 Abrams. (The obvious corollary would include all military vehicles, especially the Stryker.) For example, it seems that the newer Abrams (refer to Steve for the historiography of the naming conventions and their associated updates), have a bit more targeting systems: the gunner's; the commander's; and now, the loader's. How susceptible are they to damage from 7.62x39mm rounds? What about Nato standard? Splinters, IED's, etc. It seems that the force muliplier abilities added on to the basic armored chassis revolves around optics and electronics. What kind of energies are needed to degrade, damage, or destroy the optic lenses or electronic antennas which provide the increased combat lethality? Can anyone provide a list of all the external boxes on the vehicles in the game? And, the vulnerabilities of the boxes? Will BF.C model damage to these systems? How will an Abrams without a Blue Force Tracker handle in-game? Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, I am not trying to put words into the mouths of either Michael Dorosh or JasonC, but I am trying to gain feedback to see if I understand the concept they are proposing. I admit I like the idea of 2km x 2km maps. It allows long-range on-map CMBB weapons to be used. (Nashorns, big cats, etc. - JasonC, those toys can be FUN at long range. I know you'll debate their use at long ranges in game vice real life.) Anyway, 2km 'feels' right to me. If we autocrop maps to the size of colliding units, how is it done? What is the basis? I have a battalion. You have a company. Either I'm restricted to your size, or you're stretched to my size. Obviously, as the opposing units diverge in size from each other, the autocrop solution gets worse (i.e., more crowded, or more stretched). I enjoy the tactical puzzle of flank protection. If I have an autocrop, then my defending units lose fire effects on the flanks. How would I defend unit seam infiltration? With fixed grids, I plant the forces I want, and if there's a battle, I'm stuck with my decisions (did I put a platoon to defend a grid, or a battalion?). At some point, the fine granularity of CMBB (10 meter squares, squads and teams) has to be magnified. There are plenty of operational level game ideas. How the two interface is the crux of the problem. Other than claiming fixed grids is an idea which will lead to poor play, and autocropping is the solution, HOW will autocrop work? If I have a single Nashorn on a hill, and you have a Soviet armored regiment on the prowl, HOW will autocrop work? (All this is moot - Hunter et al. have already spoken.) Thanks, Ken

JasonC, How would you simulate small forces which work around open flanks? If the map is cropped for the collision, that eliminates the ability to fight for a shoulder and slip around. The option of doing that at the meta-map level is not my preference. Auto map-cropping raises (in my mind) other issues: what of dissimilar force sizes? Is the map cropped for the big force, or for the small force? I understand your position. However, I think the tradeoff is to either have fixed maps and flexible units, or fixed units and flexible maps. I prefer the former. Regards, Ken

flamingknives, I found the cutaway diagram here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m982-155-specs.htm My question about the round centers about it's "lift". All the aerodynamic surfaces appear to my untrained eye to be control surfaces, not lifting surfaces. Hence, they modify it's impact point, not range. I freely admit I have an almost total lack of real knowledge about this round. The slip obturating ring is still puzzling to me. The diagrams I've seen place the base fins ON the ring. I'd think a bit of rifling induced spin would be good for the first part of the round's flight. Any clarification on the obturating ring and base fins and how they relate to each other would be appreciated. The links you provided are helpful. They all seem to show the fins deployed immediately after firing. Additionally - as a grasp - the PDF document has the cover illustration of the round showing the fins blurred. As if they are in motion, spinning. I agree the canards pop out at apogee. I do not think they could extend the range by any significant amount. (I leave that vague so I have wriggle room later!) Thanks, Ken [ September 28, 2006, 05:09 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]

John Kettler, AH! Thank you for the informative primer. Yeah, the bubble of low-pressure dragged behind any moving object creates a large amount of drag. Filling that void from an on-board pressurized source would reduce drag and lead to longer range. Having educated me on that, this says: "XM982 Excalibur - Similiar to the M483A1 with the addition of a rocket motor to further increase the effective range, and with options to increase delivery accuracy." (from: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/155.htm) That statement, as regards the xm982 Excalibur, is what made me think, as I still do, that the Excalibur is rocket boosted. I have not seen pictures of the base of the round. I -assume- that the rocket exhaust utilizes a base-bleed path, instead of a single central nozzle. And further, that it produces thrust as opposed to a decrease in drag. Additionally, from what I can find, the base fins are mounted on a rotating band, such that the round will continue to rotate while the base fins will not. (Basically a slip ring.) Is this correct? Although, that puts the canards at distiinct disadvantage! So, do the base fins, upon deployment, utilize a slip ring with high friction, so as to stop the round from spinning? In short, I've seen lots of glossy cartoons and tables of how great the xm982 is/will be. How does it work - nitty gritty details and all that, and do any pictures exist showing some of the control details? Regards, Ken Edited to add: Alright, I did some more sleuthing, and found that, indeed, John Kettler, you are very much correct. There is a cutaway diagram showing a base-bleed system, self-contained, at the very base of the projectile. The diagram shows the entire ogive section filled with "Rocket Propellant Grains", adjacent to 5 "Nozzles" which ring the circumference where the curved ogive section meets the straight cylindrical section. That would be the rocket boost exhaust. So, two separate range-enhancement systems: a nose mounted, mid-body exhausted rocket boost; and a drag reducing base-bleed system. Now, on to that slip ring.... Thanks, Ken [ September 25, 2006, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]

flamingknives, Thanks. I've done a bit more research (okay, okay - I typed "excalibur" into google) and found this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m982-155.htm In this write-up, the author discusses the xm982 round and hit upon "base bleed" and "rocket" technology built into the design. This, to me, makes it quite obvious that the range extension is due to rocket assist - exhausted through base bleed nozzles. Edited to add the following: "XM982 Excalibur - Similiar to the M483A1 with the addition of a rocket motor to further increase the effective range, and with options to increase delivery accuracy." (from: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/155.htm) Thanks, Ken [ September 25, 2006, 04:12 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]

flamingknives, I have no source for this, but how does the lack of guidance have an effect on range? Guidance needs control: most controls utilize aerodynmics; there is no "free lunch"; aerodynamic forces - be it lift or turns - comes with a drag penalty. Or, do the guided rounds utilize some sort of booster? Are there pop-out wings? How is the round de-spun, if so? Thanks, Ken

Gents, I've seen video of this weapon in action. Unfortunately, too many of my brain cells have been lost in action. Due to my dendrites losing grip with their axons, the memory of WHERE I've seen the videos is lost to the cosmos. I seem to remember it having a very short range, in the 10's of meters. The low 10's of meters. Okay, maybe ONLY 10 meters. Damn those beer-soaked dendrites. The trajectory had an extremely pronounced arc. Very impressive results from the hits. Hmmm, what were we just talking about? Another beer anyone? Cheers, Ken

Andreas, Agreed: If you search (hard) there are still some sources from which to purchase Niehorster's volumes. Regards, Ken

Hmmm, You rate Zaloga above Sharp? I have both - Zaloga's Handbook and the multi (12?) volume set from Sharp. Sharp seems MUCH better. Zaloga seems to me to be a good starter/generic guide. Regards, Ken

Ummm, Could anyone give me an example of how an external text editor campaign would look? I'm speaking about the actual text. I'm not a programmer, nor do I want to be one. COBAL is the limit of my education. How would I, a CM:SF owner with no computer skills, be able to utilize a campaign system which has just been outlined? Thank you, Ken

Hunter, Thanks, Ken

To me, the ROE which demands a tank commander get permission to fire his main gun - in the midst of a firefight - is ludicrous, and stands out starkly from the rest of the narrative. Do you have any other information regarding this requirement? (The requirement to seek permission to fire the main gun.) Thanks, Ken

Steve, An addendum to my previous post. How are you planning to model the vigorous UN involvement in any crisis, and the concommitant dynamic UN leadership which frequently defuses all such crises with prompt, effective action? Okay, okay, a little sarcasm over a cup of coffee. Carry on. Ken

Okay, I'm in: "Syria with Minor Backstory and Fictional Subsection", gets my vote. Now, get back to work! Regards, Ken

WOOOOOOT! Steve has JUST announced the release date: October 3rd, 10:40 A.M. Just look upstream about 2 or 3 posts and you'll see the heavy clues he's dropped for us. Thank you, Steve. YES! SCORE! GOL! Etc., etc.

Okay, my thoughts: If Syrian TO&E is, as you say, "the heart and soul" why would you NOT create a backstory which is specific to Syria? Sure, make it lighter on the plausibility aspects if you need to, but for the love of all that's holy in the Middle East, please don't send me to fight in Trigon sponsored Mid-East Republic #24. Do you want to toss in some T-90's? Well, draft an expansion pack labelled, "CM:SF - Algerian T-90's to the Front!" and have a ball. A ball in SYRIA (or IRAN, or IRAQ, or JORDAN, or LEBANON, or SAUDI ARABIA, or YEMEN, or U.A.E, or QATAR, or you get my point.) Regards, Ken

So far, Trap One has the best idea. Regards, Ken

rudel.dietrich, Thanks. That's what I would hope happens. I have not been able to get inside a structure which has been hit by a HEAT round from the Abrams. I have had to judge the level of destruction from viewing the outside of the buildings. Regards, Ken