Vanir Ausf B

The unit details section is important given the lack of in-game unit stats. Other than that the manual is not as good as the CMx1 booklets. Critical information regarding UI functionality and C2 modeling is missing. It is too vague on game mechanics. A couple of sections have information carried over from CMSF that is outdated. Despite all that it's probably a good idea to give it a once-over.

To be fair, NBC has toned it down in recent years. I haven't been watching a lot -- mostly women's beach volleyball -- by I see far fewer of those specially produced athlete profiles than I remember from 10 years ago.

Some good stuff in there.

As for German and US binoculars, here are some opinions from US soldiers: from United States Vs. German Equipment by Isaac D. White

Seems realistic to me. If a friendly tank has been told to expect an enemy unit in a certain spot then it should spot it quickly. But that does not appear to be the case here judging from the posted video.

I started a thread on this same subject over a year ago. Turns out the manual is in error, which is unfortunate since it would be nice to have those options. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1266037#post1266037

Sounds like my cup of tea. What's the name of the game? EDIT: Never mind I figured it out.

You introduce yourself at parties as Warmachine113.

They may not wait that long. The US has formal defense treaties with Japan and the Philippines but not with Vietnam or Taiwan (although there is an implicit one with the latter). With regards to Vietnam, China is unlikely to ever be in a more advantageous position militarily than it is now. Vietnam is rearming but is still in the early stages. They just recently took delivery of 2 new Russian-made corvettes specialized for surface warfare and are awaiting the 2 ASW ships. More importantly they have ordered 6 Improved Kilo-class submarines that will dramatically increase their anti-ship capability but the first of those will not be delivered until 2014. They also have 12 Su-30 fighters on the way.

Lt Belenko Senior Member Location: Crawling out of the gutter

hmm I was under the impression that use of bump and normal maps reduced VRAM usage. (?)

Unless there is a very large discrepancy in capability it is training and logistics that wins battles. Your focus on weapons stats misses the point. And vice versa. It would be more accurate to say that my perception is heavily colored by the unimpressive performance of actual Soviet and Russian forces against opponents significantly inferior to NATO. IIRC, for the whole war Allied tanks had an exchange ratio of better than 2-1 against T-34/85 in Korea. US fighter pilots scored a 1.2-1 exchange ratio, in favor of the US, against Soviet pilots over North Korea (this from a post-Cold War RAND study with access to Soviet records.) Given that you think the USMC has run out of tanks I don't think you really know how parlous a state we are in or ever were.

I like it already. I'm going to turn the tables and try a massacre attack of my own.

The 76 will penetrate the KT front turret roughly half the time at 500m and probably for a ways further. The turret is highly rounded so that is why results vary greatly shot to shot. The upper front hull cannot be penetrated at all, even by tungsten rounds. I don't remember what the lower front hull is. The sides are no problem out past 1000m unless you are at a significant angle.

Assuming all your technobabble is true, which I very seriously doubt, has there ever been a war that was decided by the superior ability of one side's tanks to frontally penetrate the other side's tanks? You are narrowly focusing on one of the least important factors in what determines the outcome of armed conflicts. Depending on the year there would have been few if any MiG-29s. They did not enter service until 1984, the Su-27 in 1986. Even if every Soviet pilot was in a MiG-29 they would still have finished in 2nd place due to the fact that Soviet pilots got fewer flight hours. I remember reading an account some years back of a tour given to a Russian general though a US army base in Kosovo. At the end of the tour the general remarked to his US counterpart that everything they had thought they knew about US army professionalism was wrong. Or at least that was the gist of it. Your worship of the Soviet military juggernaut is embarrassing. You can say all you want about ERA and TOW missiles hitting power lines, but you can't escape the fact that the actual performance of the Soviet and Russian army from 1980 to present has been generally mediocre to poor. They were never as good as you thought they were.

Actually by mid-1944 the Panther was numerically the most common German tank, but never mind that. The Soviets still had thousands of T-55s and T-62s in service. And the Soviet air force was no match for NATO. And the Soviet army was a conscript force with less training and motivation. WW3 in Europe would certainly have been a disaster for all involved, but the idea that the Soviets stood head and shoulders above NATO and would have just steamrolled through is fantasy. As for USMC armor, AFAIK no USMC armored force has even deployed to a combat zone since the end of the Iraq war with the exception of one company from 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Division that went to Afghanistan last year. And yes, they deployed in M1A1s. So I don't know why all the other USMC M1s would be destroyed or out of service. Sounds like Reptiloid propaganda to me.

I'm saving up for Battlefront's IPO.

If you are referring to Afghanistan I would challenge you to cite even one instance of a NATO force larger than a squad being defeated in battle.

Back in the day I played a lot of TacOps. I would replace the Abrams tanks with M60A3s and the T-80s with T-72s to make it more even.

Stop dissing one of Steve's favorite directors and see if your issue resolves itself.

They were also embarassed in Chechnya by a force with much less training and less effective weaponry than any NATO country. The whole idea of the Soviets/Russians being 10 feet tall and breathing fire was discredited years ago. Some people seem to have not noticed.

Sure. Just like the invincible Germans in their Tigers and Panthers. Do you have any source for your contention that the USMC is no longer operating M1 tanks? Preferably something not involving thought waves beamed directly into your brain.

I am far from being a Microsoft fanboy, but before the bashing gets out of hand it should be pointed out that the first ever quarterly loss was due to a one-time write-off on a company they bought in 2007 that didn't work out for them. Not counting the write-off Microsoft made a 5.7 billion profit.

It was called a "POS stack", named after the guy who popularized it (Poor Old Spike).

I vaguely remember reading that the bump and normal mapping is only being applied to units, not terrain.