c3k

Yeah, snipers can be hard to use. This game usually involves dynamic movement by large forces. That's not a good environment for a sniper. It does seem like snipers do target high value targets. I have not run a test, though: that's just how it seems to me.

Thanks. I'll check it out in a day. Traveling atm.

Savegame?

Interesting. Somewhere on the interwebs, there is a cool website which discusses modern camo, with some emphasis on how the brain interprets shapes. It's one of the Canadian camo manufacturers. Discusses Crye and their newer stuff and the US DOD camo competition. Hmm... http://www.hyperstealth.com/CADPAT-MARPAT.htm Click around that site. They have some pretty interesting pages.

Hurricanes. How to stop them. I'll share this, since I've patented it. A nuke won't work. However, by cutting off a big chunk of ice shelf from Antarctica, affixing tow hooks (using water to cement them in place) then using a fleet of helicopters to tow it into position, you can shut down a hurricane. The hurricane needs warm water to create the uplift and rotation. Now, the helicopters, straining and tilting forward, will be able to get some air under the ice shelf. It'll be big, so it's important to get an air cushion under it. That reduces drag. They can then tow it at speeds of 80 knots to a location just in front of the hurricane. (At first I thought they should fly OVER the hurricane and drop it on top, like a lid, but there were issues which showed up when I was testing it with subscale models. I used a straw and ice cubes and couldn't lift them up.) Sometimes it's the less obvious solution which provides a seemingly simple solution. OT: Russia has access to ice shelves.

It's the lack of Higgs boson. During the modeling build-up, they were inadvertently left out. Otherwise, the weapon is fine. Ken "physics is fun"

+3 for the Zeuhlke trilogy. In fact, anything by him is pretty damn good. His focus is on Canadian forces.

@cbennett88, got a savegame?

My point was more focused on the CMBS assumption of a peer-peer conflict. C.f. the talk about A10 survivability, etc.

One of the best books I've read about the Canadians in Normandy is "Breaking the Panzers". https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Panzers-Kevin-Baverstock/dp/0750928956/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506601603&sr=8-1&keywords=breaking+the+panzers (There are cheaper editions available elsewhere. I've only linked to that because it was fast and easy. ) It does a great job of focusing on the operational role that the Canadians had and how they fulfilled it. There are other books, of course, but they never quite did the job of explaining what the purpose was for the Canadian actions. Baverstock's book puts it in perspective. Highly recommended.

Concrete bombs are not something which are really effective compared to HE filled bombs. Sure, the concrete bombs limit collateral damage...from the media, but then so would NOT dropping a bomb. The CEP of modern US weaponry is admirable. However, using an inert bomb to plink a truck is betting that the CEP is <.5m. That's a tight target. And, if it DOES hit, the odds of survivors is pretty good. Is it good at demoing a building? Sure. Not AS good as an HE bomb. So, the question is, why demo a building? Oh...because there are bad guys inside it. The objective is to kill them, not necessarily knock down the building. (May be a nice benefit to prevent future use.) If there's no enemy in/near the building, get a bulldozer or have some engineers emplace some explosives. No, the only reason an aircraft gets called to drop ordnance on a building is because of who is in the building. A 2000lb bomb (filled with HE) with a delay fuse will do far more reliable damage than any concrete filled bomb. A-10: great aircraft. However, the current USAF mindset is that fast beats low. A-10 at treetop height (and lower) is great, but a 600 knot run-in is better...for survivability. Target-wise, the A-10 is more effective. Hence the push for data-links, precision munitions, off-board cuing, etc. These are all needed to allow a fast-mover to have a reasonable chance at getting a hit. After being spotted, an aircraft survives by using its maneuverability. The best maneuverability occurs at the highest g-load at the slowest speed. A 9g turn is better than a 3g turn...at the same speed. Is it sustainable? Does a 9g/450knot turn give tighter radius than a 3g/250knot turn? Keep working those numbers and compare an A-10 envelope to an F16/18. Then, toss in the low-observable (and low bomb-load) of an F35. Shrug. That, at least, is the USAF outlook and why they keep trying to kill the A10.

@Josey Wales, Outstanding! Thanks for doing this and posting it here.

A sharknado would stop it.

Very hard to believe a GSM control truck triggered an on-target rocket launch. It strains credulity. That vehicle (the Leer 3) is meant to control up to a pair of drones which can spoof cell phones into using the drones as a cell towers. (Manta Ray???) I'm sure the vehicle can output some GSM signals (as well as the drones), but I'd think the vehicle is meant more as a link to the drones rather than a GSM cell. The antenna mast could probably provide a clue. Not much frag damage to anything. Some chunks, sure, but no frag.

Woods and armor. In WWI, the woods were found to make excellent fortified areas. (Concealment, obstacles to movement, on-hand supplies of wood for bunkers, etc.) After that, Germany purposely left forested areas in specific zones to use as future fortified areas. They showed their utility in WWII. The concept is still applicable.

That picture looks fantastic!!! I'm curious...but too busy at the moment to play. Let's hear some AARs!

It would've been more realistic if it had been a hover-tank.

I am not a software engineer/coder. But I am a beta tester. I have no idea whether any of the above (my bold) is true. I, therefore, am very confident that =you= have no idea if your statement is true. I do know that nothing is as simple or straightforward as we'd like it to be.

Damn.

Theoretically, it -seems- like a gas turbine's higher idle burn would give a diesel engine a significant advantage. As shown, that advantage is not as great in actuality. (Yes, it's bad enough that US Army bolted generators onto the Abrams. But having them has created a lot of benefits. Didn't the Tiger II have a small generator? One of the German tanks did... Shrug.) Theoretically, that armor gap -seems- like a weakness. As has been shown, it has never been an issue. PSKW has explained that thoroughly. As an example, theoretically, every tank is susceptible to my new anti-tank device. It's a helicopter with a strong electromagnet hanging off its winch. I foresee a fleet of heavy lift choppers bursting forth, magnets dangling, and overflying the enemy armor formation. At a signal, each helicopter pounces upon its pre-designated prey. Clamping on, they engage full torque and, beating the air into submission, they lift the tanks higher and higher. Within moments, every tank is swaying hundreds of feet above the ground, dangling by a steel cable. The enemy faces a conundrum: should they shoot the helicopter, the dangling tank will plummet earthwards and be destroyed. The friendly forces have a choice: ask the tanks to surrender (and work out some method of ensuring no false flag), or just fly over a deep lake and drop 'em? Now...theoretically, that would work. Just need some heavy-lift helos. In a stroke, every tank's defensive suite would be rendered impotent. Is the Abrams perfect? Nope. However, it is a great tank, especially given the US method of deployment, combined arms, and support. Can it be improved? Well, we're up to M1A2v3 and there's rumor of an M1A3 coming up.

The stuff "dropped" between cm1 and cm2 was gameplay stuff...not the underlying data, ballistics, or other information.

True, the US Army is very bad at air defense. In related news, the US Air Force refuses to state their readiness levels for MOUT campaigns. Rumors swirl that they are not ready to physically take possession of contested buildings.

No, LORAN is nowhere near as quick or as accurate as GPS. That's why GPS was developed AFTER LORAN: it resolved a lot of shortcomings. Here's something about differential/enhanced Loran: http://gpsworld.com/edloran-the-next-gen-loran/ Also, if you're fighting an adversary who is adept enough to jam GPS (and you can't unjam it or destroy their jammers), then they're probably good enough to do the same to LORAN, no? (Note that we're talking localized jamming of LORAN, not theater-wide, just enough to protect my forces. Or, the forces I care about at that moment. ) (That's why ICBMs use celestial nav. Or, they used to. Gotta dig that up. Kind of hard to spoof that.)

Based on the photographic evidence, the mortar shells probably entered into the opened hatches, hence the destruction. Brads stay buttoned in combat zones. Better air conditioning. My point, though tangentially put, is that photographic evidence is not evidence of what hit and what destroyed the vehicles. I am NOT saying that BFC has it totally right: I think a bit more damage to vehicles would be appropriate, in-game. Herr Tom is doing some great work on this.

Agreed. In-game, ECM doesn't affect GPS. IRL, GPS is hard to jam (militarized GPS, that is), and there are backups. (Some sources differ from your statement. They say that the round REQUIRES initial GPS acquisition which would then enable inertial nav. That begs the question of firing it without knowing the status of the GPS signal at the tube. Hard to fake that.) A big part of the gps anti-jam are the directional antennas. The last bit of spoofing the Russians have are the fuze jammers which could cause bursts too high to be very effective. Not sure what the deal is with those these days.