Peter Cairns

Comments on all three 1) Active defense against ATGM's has been live for years and is pretty good, I don't see why this should accelerate it. As to the most effective system available, Iam a traditionalist, I think it is still by far.... Infantry. 2) I don't see the issue here by and large when fired at it's quickly identified. Snipers are a problem as is a well dug in enemy, but thats nothing new, we've had it since at least the US civil war. I've know doubt that people will be out to sell all kinds of expensive gizmo's but that doesn't mean the threat justifies the expense, or that the next war will be one where they can be used. 3) The problem with the Israeli approach isn't a lack of precision but the size of ordinance and the tactics used. If you use a 1,000lb bomb on a BM-21 beside a block of flats sheltering civilians are going to die. If you use a Hellfire, they probably won't. The US is working on a more accurate Small diameter bomb, with the hope that you can take out a target (Tank/Katyusha/Mortar), with a 25kg bomb istead of a 500kg one. Less civilain casualties, less logistical burden, longer loiter times at reduced weight, more targets per aircraft per sortie, smaller cheaper aircraft (and drones) can be used. Thats little comfort for the Israeli's (or the Lebonese they are bombing), as they don't have them, but they could try doing what the US has tried and use concrete or inert practice bombs which will take out a rocket launcher if they hit it every bit as well as a 1,00lb one. I think thats a better way to go than free fire zones which since Vietnam up until the Lebanon now, seem to have done more to drive people in to the enemies camp than anything else. Which by my count means we disagree pretty much on all three. Peter.

A think a real issue is the line between command and control. there are free possibilities. 1) Allow people to put anyone anywhere, and let them perform realistically, even if that means they are crap. 2) Have some kind of System that only lets guners man guns and drivers drive, so a field gunner can't drive a tank even if ordered, and a tank driver can't fire a field gun and 3) (My favourite) You can order anyone to do anything but the less skilled they are at it, the less likely they are to do it, so if you tell a driver to man a field gun he will if you stand beside him, but the minute you move off he'll say "Sod this", and bugger off. In short you can order people to do anything no matter how unrealistic, but the more stupid it is the less likely they are to do it. It's like ordering your men to rush an MG42 across an open field, after the first burst they will be on their bellies and no matter how muchh you shout for them to get up and charge they just won't. Why, because you've crossed that line where, following an order is suicide, which is what I hope will seperate ToW from other RTS's.

As ever it is down to how it's used and how they fight. The current conflict in lebanon, points to things like the 23mm ZSU's being more important than the t-55's because they are easier to conceal and can be used against both ground forces and helicopters. Things like the long range missiles really don't have the accuracy to engage mobile targets and to have any chance would need a responsive effective C3I system that is unlikely to be available. If the Syrians could use them it would be by targeting key internal sites that they believed the US would quickly sieze, such as airports and docks. these are about the only targets large enough for a weapon with the CEP of a Scud-B to be able to target. In this respect if as the CM:SF scenario suggests they had 6 months notice, they wouldn't have time to do what makes sense, namely to trade range for throw weight. N Korean, and Iranian missile development has been largely focused on getting long ranges by cutting the payload, where as what would suit Syria best in an invasion, isn't the ability to land 250kg on the Runway at Akrita on Cyprus , but 2,500Kg's on the US held runway at Damascus. Peter.

So what have you been doing with the lowest defence expenditure in Nato ( excluding Iceland who don't have armed forces). What was it Kennedy said During the Cuban missile crisis, " And as ever the Canadians have offered us all possible assistance,... short of actual help". Peter.

Michael Dorosh, That makes sense if the canadians are going for the C-17 as opposed to the A400 or ungrades like the C-130J. Still at near $200m US a pop, the C-17 is an expensive option for sending a half dozen second line MBT's abroad every five years. Canada would be better off sticking with C-130's Wheeled LAV-3's, and good quality infantry for backup and peacekeeping and let the US UK France and Italy, the people with Assault ships and heavy lift do the MBT element. Having MBT's doesn't really make sense for domestic reasons, and now that there is no need to have them in Germany, you'll really only need them in a conlict like GW1 or OIF, and in those you will be beside people better placed to use them. Peter. [ July 25, 2006, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: Peter Cairns ]

Once CM:SF is up and running we will probably see a lot of these things come about. As it is planned to allow Red on red then given the ammo of old, adapted and updated kit that Syria has, i suspect you will pretty much have all you need to stage Iran v Iraq. Israel creates more of a problem as in that without an Israeli module, you can't get any of their equipment as most of it hasn't been exported so you can't even do a Leopard and have it under a third party like Canada or Australia. One that could have been interesting and could be modeled is Egypt v Libya. Although given recent events Libya isn't one of the bad guys anymore. Given that Eygpt has 750 M1's, it could use US equipement in Israeli scenarios. I am not sure how much of Israels kit would be that good in a fast manouvering war, as it seems to have been skewed to it's recent needs, which is more MOUT than open desert. I am not sure a 45ton APC can keep up with a Merkava 4. Jordon has ex UK Challengers so any module with the Uk that included them ( although I think they are older mark 1's) could let you do Jordon v Syria, or indeed Saudi Arabia. Once CM:SF is out I am pretty sure we will see Israeli special forces modeled in the first few weeks, and infantry based raids into Lebanon Scenarios to match them. Peter.

A more likely reason is polarisation and patriotism. By and large WW2 games sold to allied countries but also let Axis countries play as the war was over and they were democracies. That ment that most gamers could play their own country distance themselves from the old regeme and even if they lost still have good games. As people are much more polarised on the middleeast and by and large their country wasn't involved, and if it was it still is, then they are no where near as popular or will be. Peter.

John, This is more your department than mine, but how is the Phalanx radar for background clutter. That wouldn't be a problem for a frigate out at sea, where even a sea skimmer would effectively be against a blank sky. But if you were only a couple of miles off the coast and your radar was covering something like beruit then it might be getting a lot of echo back. Could it be that a system designed for air defence at sea, struggles in coastal waters against a small target with a cluttered background. Iran also makes these. Abibil Mohajer Mohajer Peter.

Mav1, Yes but where do you live. I live on the Black Isle in Scotland, and as i have said here before, the field beside my house, looks flat from a distance, and slopes down north to south on a map, by about 20m over, 500m, but when you walk around it it's full of dips and bumps, that you could sit a tiger hull down in. A good way to look at it although it's not 100% accurate, is to use GoogleEarth to find a field near you that you think is flat and then run the cursor over it to see the height change, you often find that things that look flat are anything but. Peter.

What like FAT people.... Peter.

Long time since the last post, but I had a look to see what the Chinese are developing, some interesting stuff. Type 97 Type 99 Type 63A Type 89 Weishi HJ-9 Type-022 WZ-10 New Transport L-15 None of these is in the US class , but they do show an improvement from current Chinese capabilities. I am particularly interested in the L-15, which like the Korean T-50 is a cross between a trainer and an F-16, and as such could be very attractive to a large number of third world countries look up up date to something more modern, as it lets them do both roles with one aircraft, with advanced technology at low cost. It could turn out to be chinas first real export winner taking over from the Mig-21 in Africa and beyond. The Type 89 122mm MRL is also an interesting design. Peter.

The length of time that engagements last isn't unreasonable, and if you look at recent battles like Goose green in the Falklands you see similiar day long battles with relatively few casualties. Thats because because of firepower etc, most people crawl or are in cover most of the time. I suspect that it would have been a lot shorter if the Paras had let the Apaches open up or called in harriers, but of course that could have ment dozens of civilian casualties. If in CM:SF scenarios casualties become a major factor and potentially you lose points for hitting unoccupied buildings or in later modules civilians, then people will have to learn to fight cautiously without using all the firepower at their disposal. Peter.

A mac version makes sense for BFC in that they have been highly critical of the current games industry that increasing mirrors Hollywood block busters. It's all about effects rather than depth, and all the money is made on the first weekend. BFC is more " art house' which seeks to create a fan base by word of mouth and experience, and see CM more like " The Shawshank Redemption" than "X Men, last stand". Thus direct sale (and now digital download), creating a community which is fairly open and depth of play have been placed above flashing graphics and huge marketing. Given that there is a strong "Mac Community" which in some ways exhibits the same characteristics, emphasising Quality and Design, over Price or Quantity, the two should fit quite well. I've often said that BFC should try to Bundle CM:SF with new intel Macs, as this would create a fan base among Mac users that would create an on going demand for future modules. Obviously Apple drive notoriously hard bargins, but if the key to the CM future strategy is a platfrom for a wide range of future periods and updates, then a loss leader on the platform might be worth the risk. Peter.

The guy wouldn't have bothered even if he had heard them. The guy must have been used to hearing f-16's close every day. He'd hardly have lasted in iraq if he broke cover every time he heard a jet. As to cowardly, we'll never know. By it's nature terrorism is supposed to strike fear in your enemy and cutting off someones head in front of your enemy does that. Japanese officers were know to do similiar things to both there prisoners and there own men, but they also led suicidal charges which may have been stupid tactically but it wasn't cowardly. I am not saying he was a hero, anything but, however he was active in an insurgency against a force which on ever conventional measure total overwhelmed him, indeed the conventional thinking leading up to the invasion was that what survived the regime would quickly fold or fade away. Does the fact that the are not willing to take on the US in a straight fight and be slaughtered make them cowards or just not daft. I don't think he was agreat commander and his ideology was as warped as they come, but I am just not sure that you can brand him a coward. Peter.

Ther blackhawk has had armed options like this from almost day one, and although the electronic fit is more sophisticated, it's really no different from the first Huey gunships which were in effect just armed slicks. Although the Hind gets most attention for something like two decades the armed assault version of the Hip was actually the most heavily armed helicopter in the world. "Mi-8TVK: The HIP E is used as a gunship or direct air support platform. Airframe modifications add 2x external hardpoints for a total of 6, and mount a flexible 12.7-mm machinegun in the nose. The probable armament is 57-mm rockets, bombs, or AT-2/SWATTER ATGMs." Peter.

LtCol West, Can i take it from the above, that as the MEU's are task specific depending on the mission, the idea that you create yor own force to fit up to set limits within say a Iwo Jima, isn't that unrealistic. At a campaign level you would be briefed on what was facing you based on Intel and then would need to chose your forces accordingly. In addition what you were saying about airfields and landing facilities for RoRo, would make a good basis for individual scenario objectives, where you would have to assemble small craft, amphibious, or airborne forces to sieze particular objectives. A fall back would be mid campaign reinforcesments where you would get a chance to either alter the balance as the mission changed, or a default setting would alter your force, if you were going badly wrong ( the equivielent of high up changing your force). Just as an aside could you help with this. Using Seaknights to get people in , if the target was say 10km inland and defended, 1) How close would the troops land, (would in be on map in CM:M, with a 4km map, or would they enter on foot). 2) How far of shore would the assault ship be, and in terms of reinforcement, what would the turn around time be for a second wave, assuming you used the same Seaknights. Woiuld it be too long for the average CM:M game. 3) at those ranges what would be the amount of game time that Av-8B's or Cobra would be available. 4) would a ship like an Iwo Jima, have a CSAR element for use in small special forces scenarios or would that be an add on or option for the player to choose ( if you didn't have it it would skip the scenario, if it did you would play it but you had to give up space for something else). Peter.

PSY, Tags definition of dictatorship..... Not the USA.... Peter.

Michael Dorosh, No it's UN forces mostly, although nigeria is a big contributor. Fact is they tend to be there because of the way Africa traditionally "controls" their own populations. Where the Un has gone wrong is poor intel or political judgement, where it has put in a small lightly armed force to police a truse that turnrd out not to exist. On the other hand they have been heavily criticised when they have gone in hard. It's what comes of being an armed social worker. The politicians set the rules and give the orders, and if you are too light and civilians die, the UN gets the blame, not the contibuting countries, and if the Un is to tough and it kills civilians, the UN gets the blame not the countries. Oh course if a UN mission succeeds, all the Politicians rush to the front to say it was our boys that did it and and get their pictures taken beside them. The UN is only as good as the nations that make the decisions and that tends to be the security council, where the west have a majority. If it's peacekeeping efforts are lackluster we can solve it, if we have the will. Peter. Peter.

LtCol West, thanks for that, it looks a good basis for a campaign TOE, with the three BLT's being used to restrict or organise what you can use in a particular scenario. The discussion of the numbers or indeed inclusion of tanks also means that the idea of tailoring the main TOE is realistic. Peter.

Michael Dorosh, What are you suggesting that the UN is lieing about where all these people are. As to it decreasing I don't have any figures as to how many were on going in say 66, 76, 86 or 96, so I can't make a comparison. As to not much, the UN seems to have about 45,000 troops in Africa at the moment, which puts some of the larger operations at 10,000 plus on a par with Nato's commitment to Afghanistan of around 9,000. We may not hear much about them but they are still pretty wide spread and large. Peter.

Moon, I take it that doesn't mean that I could download CMAK to run on my iMAC in classic.... Peter.

MikeyD, And what exactly makes you think we trust you on anything..... Peter.

Hiati, Congo, Lebanon, Cyprus, Possibly Dahur, and maybe Chad soon, there must be a few other. I know lets see what the UN is saying.... UN Peacekeeping. Peter.

Moon, I I read it and it was too detailed, so do I get 30% of my reading time back.... Is the not yet for Mac's, Not yet, Not likely or Not never... Peter.

MikeyD, I am not sure if you would get a lot of landing craft options, but it would certainly make a module worth buying, as it would add a huge number of future game options. I've always advocated the follow up too CM:SF should be Marines landing on the Syrian coast, with the US, UK and France. As to helicopters, I think BF would probably let you deploy in helicopter sized loads based on type, but as they don't seem to keen on air assault as such, you would probably start on the ground, as you would with Paras in CMBO. Peter.