c3k

In wartime, the waivers are usually pretty broad. It's got to do with warranty and maintenance on the aircraft. Contract stuff rather than bent metal. As well, there are other limits which sometimes aren't adhered to too closely. In wartime, if the Army fits it on and it will fly, it goes.

Hmmm. Obviously, it they could make the turret mounted be on hydraulics so it could be LOWERED into the hull, it would solve the transportability issue! I'm off to the patent office...

Whether you call it irony, being sardonic, or an example of sarcasm, I think you missed it.

Automation and pitfalls: I totally agree that the more sweaties there are to do the work, the better. Hydraulics fail, motors fry, fuel runs out and incoming fire can take out some of the crew. Having more hands available at the start is better. (The US Navy uses this type of approach (or did) with their submarines. A manual valve is far less likely to fail.) Reloading, cleaning, digging holes, pulling watch, fetching food and water, etc., all use up manpower. I still like the 120mm turreted mortar.

Sure, 30mm is nice way to knock on the door. But 120mm brings a new level to the "knock, knock". The current mortar vehicle is so...dated. With a 120mm turreted mortar, you get everything the old mount could do...and more. In a better looking package. Semi-auto loading; automated laying; multi-round TOT impact from a single tube; direct fire capability; what's not to like? You can digitally link multiple tubes for even more impressive results. 6 tubes per company. (I like the "booms". ) I haven't even started with the Air Defense version. (If you're thinking laser cannons, you're getting warm. ) And, obviously, wherever there's a .50 cal hanging on a Stryker, it'll get upgraded by the GAU19. Because more is better.

Here's a good video of the 120mm direct fire/indirect fire breech loaded mortar in action:

30mm gun already being installed on 2nd ACR's Strykers. Cool name, cool look. Hammer/eggshell. (Army was always reluctant to up-arm Strykers for a variety of reasons. Mission creep; cost per hull; more gun means it may be used for a role other than a taxi (the old conflict between "we designed it to be used" vs. "we're in the field with it".)) The 30mm gun is in a self-contained, roof mounted turret. 120mm: see o Or http://defense-update.com/products/a/amsII.htm Strapping Javelins to the hull and tying them into a sight on the RWS? Easy peasy.

Stryker improvements: A vertical launch Javelin module with 6 or 12 missiles with the sight tied into the RWS. (Think WWII German halftrack-mounted nebelwerfers...but cooler.) Stick 'em on all of them. Use the 2 ACR style 30mm gun. Put 'em all over the place. Maybe all of them. For organic indirect fire support, a breech loading 120mm mortar in a turret. Give every company about 6 of these in a support platoon. The added benefit is the ability of breech-loaded 120mm mortars to fire directly at targets. Bring the boom, baby! (Chop a pair to each maneuver platoon. If 1st platoon, at that moment, is in contact, it's 120's can fire directly (how's that sandbagged house working for you now?), and it can call in support (networked C2I, etc.) from the four 120's in the other two platoons. These weapons can go from moving to firing on a target in just a minute or so.)

This is a tough subject. 1. Yes, as per the notes, a change in behavior was made from v3 to v4. Or, rather, a "tweak" to behavior. The same behavior was still in the code, it just seems that it gets triggered at a different moment. 2. BFC has never changed anything just because of stories, anecdotes, or mass pleadings. There has to be repeatable evidence, which clearly shows erroneous behavior. If it is not minor, then it will be fixed/patched as soon as possible. (In my experience.) The crux is the presentation of evidence. One squad running out of foxholes does not an argument make. 3. The "behind the curtain" effects which make this game so special, involve morale, leadership, reaction to incoming fire, etc. These are precisely the issues which are directly attributable to, or responsible for, this type of behavior. If it were just a question of the rate of fire of an MG42 being off, it'd be easy to point to the "problem" and then reference the "fix". This running from HE is very complex. Sometimes it's right, sometimes (to our all-seeing-eyes) it seems wrong. First, repeatable instances of behavior need to be created. Then, it needs to be shown how this is "wrong". Easy to say, hard to do.

One of the German Volksgrenadier platoons is armed with all MP44s. (Or, rather, one squad in a platoon is so-armed.) You can purchase several battalions and just delete all the non-all-MP44 squads (you can tune your forces by the squad/team/vehicle, but not below that level). Play with the editor. It is a very powerful tool once you get the hang of it.

I'll hold your beer while you ask one.

Err, "leatherette"?

The bigger/more energetic round also does better in built-up areas. Or shooting up/down at distances far in excess of 500m. I'm sure the bigger cartridge seems like a no-brainer...from my leather swivel chair in my air-conditioned office.

Creedmoor is great. Very fast, very flat, very accurate. It brings some "oomph", too. The current US 5.56 round, the M855A1 (62 grain) is touted for how "environmentally friendly" it is. Yeah. "We're here to kill you. It's better that your blood seep into the ground than lead bullets." I'll stop there. Some basic stats (which are hard to find and, what I have found are "suspect" in that they are commercial loads fired from test barrels). What follows is roughly apples-to-apples: 62 grain 5.56 muzzle: 3,060 fps/1,289 ft-lbs 300 yards: 2,095 fps/ 604 ft-lbs 500 yards: 1,571fps/ 340 ft-lbs Compared to the 143 grain 6.5mm Creedmoor... muzzle: 2,700 fps/2,314 ft-lbs 300 yards: 2,285 fps/ 1,685 ft-lbs 500 yards: 2,031fps/ 1,309 ft-lbs The above is from Hornady.com and as such is NOT mil-spec ammo numbers. The power of the Creedmoor is far higher than the 5.56. However, the rifles and ammo weigh a lot more...so there's that. FWIW.

Hmm...just read a little blurb about this. They're positing the .260 and the 6.5 Creedmoor among others. If anything, I would've expected the 6.5 Grendel. (Take a 6.5mm bullet, cram it on a 5.56 case and you have the Grendel. Take the same bullet and stick it on a necked-down .308 case and you've got the Creedmoor. That's the rough idea.) The creedmoor is outstanding. I'll still be stunned if they move up to a .308 class of cartridge. (Hey, I'd make 'em all semi-auto creedmoors if I were in charge...)

This debate pops up every 5 years or so. Yes, the 5.56 is not a great round. It is, however, pretty good. Now, if you need to penetrate body armor, bricks, etc., then your round is different than if you shoot an unarmored opponent. Lots of anecdotes about that. The most often mentioned rounds to fill the "more oomph" niche are 6.8 SPC (a compromise between 5.56 and 7.62...just about perfectly in the middle), .300 Blackout (a 7.62 round crammed onto a 5.56 brass...great at short range, especially subsonic and suppressed), or a full up rifle round (7.62x51mm or thereabouts). The problem? Well, there's no free lunch in engineering. The 5.56 was chosen for a reason. The particular round may change (55 grain up to 77: steel core, OTM, etc, etc.), but the ballistics and terminal effects are pretty balanced for the 300m firefight. In CQB, the .300 Blackout is better (if I had to choose). However, that round is horrible at longer ranges. The 6.8 SPC is good. A jack of all trades, between the 7.62x39 and the 5.56x45. The other problem? The incredible expense of changing out the existing 5.56 world. Ammo? That's easy. Think ballistics, sights, barrels, machinery, cleaning kits, etc., etc., across the entire military. It would take a phenomenally strong argument (with a LOT of proof) to change the 5.56 to something else. Every 5 years this lesson gets relearned.

Hmmm... Seems likely that there'll be a fuzed 40mm round, fired from an M320 UGL type of launcher tied in to the firing system. The 25mm seems to be a bit small for good HE. I also don't see the semi-auto feature being very useful. 40mm, single-shot, on 2-4 weapons in the squad, may bring enough. (As well as the Pike.)

Rule 1. PGr are there to keep the tanks safe. 2. Keep the tanks ~100-300m behind the PGr at all times. Or further. No closer. The PGr are a buffer to absorb and observe and allow the tanks to spot targets. 3. Area fire at everything. Then do it again. 4. Advance only towards terrain that you absolutely need to control/take. Don't poke into something "just because". If it's not a mission critical location, stay away. 5. Only advance with scouts. They will die. 6. Re-saturate with area fire the location from which the fire that killed your scouts originated. 7. Advance a second set of scouts. 8. Repeat until scouts don't die. 9. Move infantry up into that terrain/cover/position, then advance the tanks. (Remember to stay at least 100-300m behind infantry.) 10. Never, never, never, under any circumstances, ever, enter the woods. Don't do it. You've been warned...

HerrTom, Great stuff. I think it'd be fairly easy to use the mass of iron (steel, in its various forms) to come up with a first-order approximation of size of fragment as it relates to mass. Your Recht and Ipson model uses relative size of fragment as it compares to the plate for the equation's output. Let's also remember that most shells do NOT have thicker and thicker walls. There is (as I understand it) a usual range of thickness. (British 5.5" (grr, or was it the 4.5" shell?) was very thick in comparison to the norm. It had a very poor performance against soft targets. Too few fragments.) Therefore, most shell fragments would gain mass by increasing their length. (Shell wall thickness is a maximum value. Metal crystal structure and detonating material/amount would determine width, to a large degree. The only thing left would be length. Obviously, this is HIGHLY variable. I'm thinking only of the larger fragments, since I think we can disregard the small fragments as a penetrating problem.) It would be interesting to compare the probable energies with the STANAG protection levels of the various external components. Shredding of sights, barrels, comm gear, ERA, etc., could thereby be more closely modeled. Of course, this is all back of the envelope. It'll be better when you refine it and include a motion gif. Great stuff. Ken

You're not going to find a game anywhere with better TOE and ballistics/effects and "soft" factors being simulated. I don't know what point values you're looking at for your comparison between a StuG and PzIV. (I'm not being obtuse, I really just don't know them off hand...and they are highly variable based on dates and other factors.) Post the numbers. Thanks. Use Iron mode and neither side will have any intel on the other side unless they gain it via contact. If you really want realistic combined arms, and don't like the QB selector's points, ignore the points and build the forces you want. See how they do. Or use the editor and never look at points. Ken

Jeweler's loupe.

LOL... If I were the Chinese or Iranian bidder for the TOW wire spool, I'd be sure to put a few weak spots in a lot of them. Not all, and not at first: sampling and all that...

Huh. I've always just loaded all my old electronic junk into my car and driven them up to Canada. Dropped 'em by the side of the road. At night. In a snow storm.

I've gone from CM on my OS SSD to having it on data Hard Drive (a spinner). I have not noticed any load time changes. But, I did not time the loads, so this is purely subjective. However, since swapping my 90+GB CM installation off my SSD, I have not felt any desire to put it back. FWIW.

My bold... That's why I wrote the following in my post (upstream), bolded for emphasis: Now, there may be a misunderstanding with the term "default". In this case, it's the location that BFC's installer points the file. If you have CHANGED that location, your location is no longer the "default". It is, shall we say, "customized"? As well, there may be a misunderstanding with what to do with the downloaded upgrade file. (It's been covered before, but repetition is the mother of invention...or something.) Download the upgrade file. It is zipped. (Hey, if you're on a Mac, I have no idea what it does or how it comes. This is pure windows.) Stick that zipped file ANYWHERE YOU WANT. Unzip it. It really, really, really, really helps if you unzip it in its own folder. For example, I've got a "Game Upgrades and Downloads/Battlefront/Big Bundle 4/CMFI Full Install" folder. There is NOTHING ELSE in it except the big full install zipped file. I unzip it...in that same folder. Clean and tidy... (Now is when you should follow the normal upgrade steps: remove/backup your mods and savegames and decide if you want to nuke your old install or not.) Run the upgrade exe which has been newly unzipped in your clean and tidy folder. POINT IT TO YOUR DESIRED INSTALL LOCATION. (Yeah, some games have self-aware patches/upgrades which sniff out the mother file no matter where you've hidden her. BFC doesn't do that. It REALLY helps if you want to keep an old install running in parallel with a new install. There's a nice benefit to this system.) Hope no one trips up...