Vanir Ausf B

Well then I will try to remember to move a team with SMGs into an action point with casualties and see what happens, because I'm pretty sure I've seen them swap with a rifle before. EDIT: Ok, I did some searching around old posts and it does appear that SMGs will not be swapped for rifles. But on the other hand rifles will also not be swapped for a fallen SMG.

Sure. I didn't say it wasn't a good strategy for them under the circumstances. My point is that I'm not as impressed with their military prowess as some others.

I just wish my guys wouldn't exchange their SMGs for rifles unless they are out of ammo. I find SMGs generally more useful, which requires me to be careful no to park any teams with SMGs in the same action spot with a casualty.

It is on these rare occasions that the Taliban manage to accomplish something of military significance that I pause to wonder at the vast disparity between what passes for success to them and for us. Imagine, if you will, that the US or any other NATO country sent in a team of 15 commandos to strike a Taliban or al-Qaeda training base. They blow up a few buildings and kill a couple of bad guys, but in the end all 15 commandos are killed or captured. It would be considered a minor disaster. There would be calls for investigations. Bigduke6 would be making predictions on how the Pentagon will put a positive spin on the defeat. But when the Taliban do it people talk like its the ****ing Battle of Isandlwana.

I think you are ascribing far more influence over the media to the Pentagon than exists. The loss of the Harriers is of far less importance to the general public than it is to military hardware geeks such as ourselves. The public cares more about casualties -- which were not unusually high for an incident in Afghanistan -- and the fact that a celebrity resides at the base. The main stream media simply caters to its audience. EDIT: This is the official ISAF press release. http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/isaf-provides-additional-details-on-camp-bastion-attack.html Yep, they TOTALLY used Prince Harry's survival to chalk it up as a win.

As you know, you go to war with the Marine Corps aviation you have, not the Marine Corp aviation you might want or wish to have at a later time. And frankly, why not Harriers? Do they suck at CAS or something?

I can see issues with that. 500 rounds of 12.7×99mm weighs a lot more than 500 rounds of 7.62×63mm which weighs a lot more than 500 rounds of 5.56×45mm.

What anti-aliasing setting are you using? Try turning it off completely and see if it makes a difference. Also, do you have a 3 GB or 2 GB card? Apparently the 2 GB versions run better since the card doesn't have enough memory bandwidth for 3 GB. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-ti-memory-bandwidth-anti-aliasing,3283-11.html

Is it something like this?: If so, a face command didn't work. In fact, nothing worked other than moving the team out of the foxholes then back.

If the question is what tank would most likely come out on top in a head-to-head encounter then I agree the KT had no equal. But in some ways it's not a fair fight. The KT was much heavier than any Allied tank -- 28 tonnes (!) heavier than the Pershing -- and it paid a high price for that weight in terms of mechanical reliability, fuel consumption and strategic mobility.

If you are wanting to ambush an enemy as they enter the building, which appears to be the case from your description, the best place for your ambushing unit is probably outside of the building on the opposite side from where the enemy will enter.

KT upper hull was mostly invulnerable to everything, but British 17 pdr and 77mm cannon, US 90mm cannon, Soviet 100mm cannon and 122mm cannon could all penetrate the KT front turret. The distance and reliability with which they could do this varied considerably with what type of ammunition was used.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think that in CMx2 routed troops flee towards the friendly edge of the map regardless of where the enemy units are. So if the enemy is between them and the friendly map edge they will flee towards the enemy. Come to think of it, I believe this was true in CMx1 also.

http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_vehicles_adv.php

It's 3 mortar sections of 2 tubes each. This isn't clear in the "available troops" screen which just says "3 x Medium Mortar", buy if you look at the more detailed break down in the "activated troops" part of the screen you'll see all 6 tubes.

Yep. I have read that roughly half of Soviet tank crew casualties were from armor spalling due to its brittleness, which caused a high proportion of eye injuries.

Yes, and I think his main point is that the hole allowing grenades to be thrown can be in a completely different direction than the grenades are thrown.

Well, as for the maths given here I think looking at the proportion of tanks killed in the entire war by fausts is deceiving since they were in widespread use for only about the last year of so of the war in Europe. They also became progressively more capable as the war neared it's end with the PF60 and later the PF100. And you are quite right that the mere threat forces a change in tactics. The fact that US troops tended to scavenge the things and haul them around suggests they felt fausts were worth their weight.

Don't let that video stand in the way of your whinge. It was intended as a sort of tongue in cheek support of it. Sure, you can fire a 60mm mortar from the hip but not at it's deployed ROF, and the accuracy would be complete crap.

Seems legit

Thank you, Michael, but I've known what it means for many, many years. And it really is just a grammar issue. People use the term "begs the question" colloquially to mean "begs for the question to be asked" probably with more frequency than it is used correctly. Kind of like when people say "could care less" when they really mean the opposite; it's not because they don't know what the words mean.

Are you playing tiny or small games? The autopicker isn't particularly intelligent in any circumstance, but seems to get progressively dumber as the number of points it's given to work with decreases. My advice is to try at least medium size and maybe give the AI side a points bonus. Or you could pick the AI's units for it either directly or by pressing the suggest button until something sane appears. I would suggest the latter since the autopicker tends towards very armor-centric forces.

I won't rehash the lengthy arguments here, but there is substantial evidence that it is often if not usually safe. And there is almost universal agreement that buildings with large interiors would be fine, as well as buildings that are somewhat open to the air due to damage. In fact BFC has said that the current implementation is unrealistically too restrictive to infantry, but they felt an across-the-board ban was closer to real than an across-the-board allowance. Whether or not we agree on that point there is no question that infantry are currently getting the shorter end of the stick on this issue. Yeah, I don't really know how it could be implemented but I suspect you are correct that it may need to be a TacAI function. I would love to see something done since street corners are easily one of the most commonly used cover objects in real world urban combat. Quick, but not instant. Ideally it should be a function of crew quality, subject to degradation if the intercom system was damaged. Yeah, unfortunately it does not appear this will be changed. BFC has said that tanks are deliberately more accurate when firing on the move than in reality in order to give the AI a chance. This was toned down some in one of the CMBN patches but is still present to some extent and likely will be for the foreseeable future. I would not recommend an all-armor force to anyone. Infantry does have a critical role to play. Namely, to spot for the artillery and to flush out enemy units so the tanks can kill them

LOL, I had actually thought to myself "you better edit that before some grammar grog says something... nah". Perhaps. However, there is an exception to the rule requiring the firing unit to be in C2. If the HQ or FO calling for the fire is withing 50m of the firing unit it can call indirect fire from that unit even if both are out of C2. This is true even if they in different chains of command.