Vanir Ausf B

Sorry, that never has and never will be the overriding reason for why something gets into our games or not. You can look back over 8 years of posts and find that we've consistently rejected this as a prime reason for choosing something.</font>

I have no problem with the MGS being included, but I do think it odd that 72 of them are enough to warrent inclusion, but the 200 BMP-3s the Syrians have don't make the cut.

I think you would be much more likely to see a large French contingent in a UN operation in Syria than German. I also think the French would make for more interesting blue-on-blue games.

50

That happened long ago, for those of us who remember the wild conspiracy discussions in the general forum a couple years back.

We've got to have this in CMSF.

Only if you limit your time period to the last 20-25 years. Up until the early 80s there was not a huge gap in quality, and with a quantitative advantage Soviet/WP forces would be nicely competative in a conventional setting. I understand you have lost interest in Cold War scenarios, but they are still viable.

So the US doesn't think North Korea is a threat?

It is also worth mentioning the this is an internal document, not a public statement. Just because some staffer wrote it does not mean it was ever US policy. I am unaware of any public condemnation of WP use by the US.

Heeheh. I thought of that post when CMSF was announced (and there are one or two others that are similar). BFC have done a complete 180° on modern warfare since then. Personally, I thought they had the right idea the first time, but we'll see...

Since the US military does not classify WP as a chemical weapon (nor any other military in the world I know of), I'd be curious as to what they were thinking. If you want to be really technical, a pointy stick with the end lit on fire is a chemical weapon. But no one in their right mind would put such a thing in the same category as mustard gas and VX nerve agent. I'm not unsympathetic to your general point, but I think you're speaking towards issues far removed from WP. If it comes down to letting terrorists kill me or shooting WP rounds at them, I'll shoot them. Frankly, I think you would too.

Using WP as a weapon is legal. No one can quote a single treaty that says otherwise. Repeating assertions that have been debunked will not make them any less false no matter how many times you repeat them. If the US loses the war in Iraq after having used WP, they would have lost it anyway had they not.

Then you are doomed to fail, as has been pointed out previously. This is false. For the 67th time, the CCW does not prohibit the use of WP. I can't believe this is still being propagated.

A point we can all agree on.

Tayloring your actions to suit people who are irrational, too ignorant or too biased to make sound judgement is a losing strategy from the start. If that is what is required to win a war the mistake is not in how the war is being prosecuted, but getting into such a war in the first place.

Link Link

Drusus is correct. Kills outside of LOS are not counted in CMBO. In CMBB and CMAK they are.

IIRC, they said 2nd quarter next year. Apply all the usual qualifications regarding software release dates.

Well, I was thinking more of T-72s which, IIRC, automatically eject the casing after each shot.

What about for tanks? If you consider 1996 recent (Duke Nukem)

I was really annoyed about the vehicles with generic models in CMBB. I hope we've seen the last of that.

With all due respect to Mr. Kaiser, I am sceptical. His position is that the intent of the user determines if the weapon is banned. User intent is not listed anywhere in the treaty that I can see. Under Kaiser's definition JDS's oily rags would indeed be chemical weapons if he ever threw them at Sergei.

The deliberate use of just about any weapon against civilians is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions. Incidental civilian casualties are a differerent matter. If the US deliberately targeted civilians, or was perhaps indifferent to their danger, they would be in violation of the GC regardless of whether they used white phosphorus or pointy sticks. If US forces took reasonable precautions but some civilians were killed anyway this would not be a violation even if WP were used. People should just forget about Protocol III. It's irrelevant. You guys are getting all caught up in the "chemical weapons!" hysteria.

I think it is initial design. Restricted weapons are described as those that are "primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons". As for the exempt munitions "illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems" is pretty much what WP is, except for tracers. What else could they have been refering to? It doesn't matter. As I pointed out earlier Protocol III doesn't actually ban anything. Even under Sergie's interpretation use in Falluja would not have been a violation.

I'm guessing that anyone hit by a US munition is not going to be happy about it regardless if it's WP or a bullet. WP is not classified as a chemical weapon. Just because an Italian newspaper decides to start calling them that doesn't change that fact. If the New York Times started calling 2000lb JDAMs "Weapons of Mass Destruction" would the US have stop using them? Of course not. This has already happened, and I suspect it is not possible to change those perceptions. I agree that world opinion does matter, but you can't make yourself a slave to it. WP isn't going to change anybody's mind. It may reinforce opinions already held. I agree that the morality of WP use is subjective. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with it. In my opinion I have not seen any good arguements to convince me it is immoral. Therefore in my opinion anyone condemning the US for its use is doing so out of ignorance and I don't have a lot of patience for ignorant people. But that's just me. Oh BTW, I was against the invasion of Iraq and still think it was a bad idea.