Vanir Ausf B

Hard to say. The PLA hasn't seen real combat on a large scale in decades. That itself is a problem. At least the Russians have recently learned real-world lessons and are attempting to apply major structural changes to increase combat performance. With the PLA is looks like nothing is changing but the hardware, which reminds me of the Saudis.

I think the central problem with Arab armies has been that their primary purpose is to suppress internal dissent rather than defeat external threats. This is why I suspect that if the US and China every were to come to blows in a land war the PLA would do little better than Iraq in 1991.

I don't think any serious person would consider Russia a peer rival to the US, or even close to it. But I do think that outside of the US's own NATO allies it is probably the closest thing to it. We know from real world conflicts that all Middle Eastern countries should be eliminated from the discussion. Asymmetrical guerrilla warfare is a different story, but that in not the kind of conflict Combat Mission is about. China would be interesting, but it is not at all clear that the PLA is any better than the Russians, just bigger. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/29/xis_war_drums?page=full

..................

I dated a girl from Germany once. She was endlessly amused by double entendres when speaking English and rarely missed an opportunity for one :cool:

Those are two views. I doubt they are the only two. An unmanned turret does not sound like a modified T-90. What is your source for the 2020 date? It is presently scheduled for 2015. You are making a lot of judgements about the relative combat performance of weapon platforms that have never been tested in combat and in most cases are still in development, which suggests that you either have access to some very hard-to-come-by information or you are guessing. Where would this joint China/US intervention on the same side be set, and who would they be intervening against? From what we know of CMSF2 it seems to be based on a NATO and Russian intervention in Ukraine, though BFC hasn't said much about the story line beyond that. This "Arc of Crisis" idea is interesting but seems more broad in concept than BFC would ever implement into a single game, even with modules, and some of the countries mentioned would not realistically be involved the same conflict. China vs. India is a possibility, but neither would likely be seen anywhere near Turkey, Syria or Israel. You might want to narrow it down a bit.

I didn't word that quite right. I know BFC isn't going to do that. I was referring to Peter's proposal.

Do you have some information on the likely cancellation of the T-99 or is this just your personal opinion? There will be other vehicles based on the T-99 chassis, including an APC, but the T-99 is in fact a battle tank. It has an unmanned turret and ammunition stowage separate from the crew as in Western designs. That it is a further evolution of the T-90 is not what I am reading. As for the rest, you are making a lot of unsupported claims, but I am not interested in debating them in detail since I am not opposed to the idea of a China vs. NATO/US game. But it seems to me this would be a separate project than another Middle Eastern-based CM. China is not involved militarily in the Middle East and has no real ability to do so. Is anyone really excited about the idea of Syria vs. NATO Round 2? We already know how Syria matches up against NATO. They are not significantly more capable now than they were in 2006.

Russia is introducing an all-new tank design in 2015, the T-99. They stopped buying T-90s a few years ago for that reason and also because they found that it was cheaper to upgrade their existing T-72 fleet to near-T-90 standards. That China buys from Russia because it's cheaper than making it themselves is a new one on me. Frankly I would need some evidence to believe that. I would also like to see a list of Chinese weapon systems that are more advanced than their Russian counterparts. Everything I have read about the PLA suggests they are nothing close to a peer rival to the US Army, but performance is largely theoretical since China hasn't been involved in a large-scale land conflict in over 30 years. If they can be believed, the Chinese don't think they could take on the US either: http://defensetech.org/2011/05/19/pla-chinese-military-doesnt-compare-to-u-s-military/ As for Middle Eastern countries such as Algeria and Syrian presenting a more formidable challenge than Russia, I think that is pure fantasy.

I'm pretty sure this is true. China still buys weapons from Russia. AFAIK Russia does not buy weapons from China. And although I don't doubt that the Russian armed forces still have issues with moral and training I would question if China is any better. The PLA is also a conscript force. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/30/can_china_s_top_guns_fly_pla_air_force?wpisrc=obinsite

The Pentagon tends to be pessimistic in it's casualty predictions. IIRC they were expecting 5000 casualties in the first Gulf War against Iraq.

The most official word we have is that they are WYSIWYG. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1446124#post1446124

Agreed. The only reason I ever used Target Light was to preserve the rifle grenades, but that was under the assumption that was the only effect. I don't think the reduced RoF is worth saving the grenades, which when fired usually miss their target by a mile anyways. I would rather Target Light not effect the RoF on units that almost never need to preserve ammo. In fact, off-hand the only unit type I can think of that I would like the reduced RoF on is mortars.

That's what I used to think as well. Then one day Steve called it a bug.

I also wonder about the statement that tanks given Target Light fire their machine guns at a lower RoF. If that is true it shouldn't be, IMO. Most tanks carry huge amounts of machine gun ammunition.

-- Leakey’s Luck: A Tank Commander with Nine Lives, by Michael Carver

He actually seems to have been commenting it being moved sans packing-up after firing rather than on setup time. With regards to the MG34, they can be moved while still deployed without packing-up in the game.

Perhaps I'm not understanding your meaning. You can't use the force adjustment on the defender and the difference in points between engagement sizes are too large to be effectively used as a substitute.

I don't own CMFI so you'll have to test the Italians for yourself. As for the Brits, at least in CMBN the only machine gun they seem to have other than the Vickers is the Bren which does not deploy.

I suspect you were just unlucky, however this would not be an unrealistic result. Shermans could generally open fire faster after spotting a target due to differences in the gunner's sight.

Yes, but not really. The problem is that the force adjustment option is much more granular with adjustments as small as +/- 10%, whereas going from a large probe to a huge probe changes the defenders points from 3445 to 5787, a 70% increase.

^^^ Why did you post that in this thread? Are the rebels using MG34s now?

I really wish you could adjust both the attacker and defender (we could in CMx1, BTW).

It's 4 action spots, so about 32 meters. Just keep in mind this is only for the MG42 and MG34 (and the US 1919A4 MMG). Heavier machine guns such as the M1917 and Vickers must be packed up.