c3k

Differing specs... SLAP and SLAP-T (tracer) shows 34mm at 500 yds. and 23mm at 1,200 yds. Mk211 claims 50mm (Janes Defence Review). No range that I could find.

Mk211 round is pretty spiffy. I don't know what the 14.5 has. (But if they're sale, it'd be nice to have one around the house.)

Yeah, tracer for canister is not correct...but it looks cool.

This is a great idea! Thanks for sharing. Ken

Err, any of the games at v3 of the engine have triggers. Older battles may not have been updated, but they are still good. Plus, the older ones have more mods and more built scenarios. And, the packs add the trigger-designed battles.

Without triggers the designer has to use timers. It was far better on defense, with timed reinforcements moving up, than on attack.

^^^ Re: Super Elevate. Yeah, that's a great characteristic to have. The 30mm round brings some hurt, against both infantry and helo's. Having high elevation is great, especially for MOUT and rough terrain. However... If this is going to be mounted as a secondary weapon, then you've got a LOT of issues. 1.) Secondary weapons are tough to coordinate with primary weapons. Not impossible, just difficult... See the multi-turreted tanks of yore. 2.) If it is co-axial with the main gun, then the elevation needs to be carried over to that main gun. That is HARD. Makes for a hugely tall turret. 3.) If it is not co-axial with the main gun, then it needs its own elevation mechanism outside of, and in addition to, the main gun. As well as its own sights and targeting system. That's a lot of excess baggage. All the above are moot if you're not talking about having the 30mm as a secondary weapon on the Armata.

Nothing official, but I'd think "Bulge" and "RT" will end up going to the end of ETO on each front. Then? I'd love to see earlier East Front, and ealier West. ('41 in Russia would allow using the early German gear in the West. '40 France would be...interesting.) I'm not sure what modern warfare will bring. Modules for Black Sea to bring in airborne, marines, Nato? The oft-requested CMSF rebuild? Shrug. Personally, despite all the hard-fought battles in the Pacific, I'm not interested in gaming it. (I liken it to the heavy forest ambushes in CM; bloody, and won by overwhelming firepower...always at a cost.) Ken

There are a bunch of threads on this. A search (pita though it may be) will turn up more help. 1. If you order BLAST through an obstacle, the engineers stop, blast, then FAST to the endpoint. They can die that way. The exception is breaching a building. The blast will usually pin the defenders, and the FAST engineers get inside and kill the enemy. For bocage or walls, where you don't want the engineers going PAST the obstacle (or buildings, for that matter), have the BLAST command go up to, but short of, the obstacle. Give a decent pause (30 sec?) and then move the engineers off to the side. (Or else, after they BLAST the wall/bocage down, they'll sit there and suck up whatever shooting comes their way.) Better threads have pictures of this. Practice it. The timing is the toughest part to get the hang of. (It's really sweet when your engineers blast a wall down, scuttle away, another unit moves up and lays down suppressive fire, while a third unit moves in.) 2. Don't HUNT in a minefield. Once a minefield is discovered (almost always by creating casualties), move an engineer squad adjacent to it. That's when the MARK MINES command becomes active. Use that. When the minefield sign turns green, then a MOVE command -should- get your guys through that mine location with minimal chance of triggering more mines. (There's always a chance...) The faster you move through a marked minefield, the greater the chance of detonating something. Even with engineers. Ken Addendum: I've found that I get a better chance of creating vehicle-sized holes in bocage if I give a BLAST command which is at an oblique angle to the bocage. Perpendicular approach usually creates a non-vehicle passage. Again, not guaranteed...

C'mon, the M60A2 was a "bad" tank? Look at that uber-kool turret!

That looks like two V engines linked at the crank. >< configuration. (4 banks of 3 cylinders.) Is that how it's set up?

Set your resolution in Options to "desktop". Play the game. Toggle the widescreen key and see which way (normal or wide) looks best to you.

There is a file to look peek at as well. If it shows 0 0 it means desktop. You can manually tweak it for other resolutions. I've forgotten which folder it's in. Sorry.

Well, it is inevitable that it does so, at some point. (This thread going OT...) Tanks cost money. Better tanks cost more money. Money comes from economic activity. Economic activity (and the money squeezed from it) is, to a large extent, determined by centralized governments (at least, that's how it is working lately). The Tiger II was a better tank than most...once it reached the battlefield. But the Germans could not build many of them, nor adequately support the ones they had. It was too expensive for them. Plus, thanks to the pressure exerted on them, they could never afford to shut down the PzIV facilities to switch over to something better. That's the effect of economics and how it filters down to the battlefield. The current "run what you brung" attitude on modern large scale war may or may not be correct. However, that does drive some production figures and planning. The US military (US Army and USMC) have about 8,100 delivered Abrams of various models. That's a lot of tanks. Not all of them are M1A2 SEPv2. But they all could be upgraded to that level relatively cheaply. Supposedly they cost around $7 million (that seems low to me and is probably an old number). The latest figure I found is that the TOTAL Russian economy produced about $2 Trillion in goods and services. The US was listed as $16 Trillion. The cost to compete is prohibitive. As good as the Armata may be, there cannot be the numbers needed to seriously compete with US dominance without destroying the Russian economy... (Of course, that "US dominance" is a paper exercise. Tanks in the US do not have any battlefield influence were there to be a fight in Europe...unless the tanks get shipped.) Then there are the M1A3 rumours... Economics do play into it. That brings geopolitics into it. Meantime, I'm very curious to see what this new tank may look like and what innovations it brings.

Yes. Which is why this weapon (RPO) seems to be so effective if it gets into a room/building. "Flamethrower projector" brings to mind a projectile filled with flammable material, to start fires, rather than overpressure inducing shockwaves.

The term "flamethrower projector" is, to me, a mistranslation. It seems to be a very powerful thermobaric warhead. Much would depend on getting the effects to occur inside. Accuracy and the efficacy of the precursor (and its resulting effect on the main charge) would be critical. But, if it gets in, wow.

To be clear, I did NOT say anything about ISIS "using" chem weapons. Just that news reports said that "Isis had overrun" stockpiles. FWIW, my personal belief is that it was a pile of old stuff (pile being anything from a dozen old 120mm shells to several hundred of other types), probably corroding away, and in no way capable of use. The old saw that "there were NO WMD" in Iraq is clearly false. Unless you think they got produced AFTER 2003? As discussed above, I think they were some of the leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war, probably buried in the desert to avoid detection, and then forgotten about. 20+ year old chem ordnance is probably more hazardous to the user than anyone else. (Assuming they've even retained any active chemical.) IMO, they were a remnant, barely worthy of a footnote. (I only mentioned it to show that there was a shred of truth for some to use to clothe their arguments.) Ken

^^^ Okay, yes, LOL, but... from where did the chemical weapon stockpiles that ISIS overran appear? (WMD = Chemical, Nuclear, Biological. The old "ABC" is now "NBC". Is CBS feeling left out, as well as PBS?) But, your point stands: you showed him a position he did not like so he called you a traitor. Debate over.

It seems VERY odd to see WWII footage in natural color! Amazing what years of black & white imagery does to condition one.

Ammo? Perhaps that bunker was the storeroom for blankets and lantern kerosene? Cordage stored inside to keep dry before being used to build wooden bunkers? In-game, perhaps that was an ammo-dump? I really don't recall, one way or the other, anything about concrete bunker behavior after being knocked out.

I think you'd be surprised if you ran the energy numbers comparing the vehicle impact with the muzzle energy. The recoil impulse is attenuated by the buffer, etc. Momentum conservation, M x V, would favor the Tiger II (twice the mass), were it an inelastic collision. I'm sure it rocked their world...unexpectedly. Pretty incredible move by the Sherman crew.

There has been a purge of military leadership based on political support for obama. I do not know if that is what she ran afoul of, or if there was a real problem. Morale is terrible, across the services, because of "national leadership" issues. That plummeting morale has led to some deficits in command. Shortcuts, etc. Some of the firings are well-deserved. Others are just part of a political shaping of the US military which is unprecedented.

A simpler solution would be for BFC to hire a slew of h2h/pbem players, keep them in a server farm, and have a ready opponent for anyone turning on the game. Failing that, yeah, I'd love to see a lot of these suggestions get incorporated into the game.

Edited because I forgot some basics. Soooo....other than cross platform compatibility (I'm looking at you, Mac users) there is no reason to favor OpenGL over DirectX? (The no fee is news to me. Thanks for straightening me out.)

^^^ DX fee: that may be a miswired neuron. I saw that number years ago. So...what's to keep a developer from using dx? (I -know- that BFC has posted that there is/was a fee. Of course, that could be part of that same miswired neuron...)