Peter Cairns

LtCol West, I thought the M-32 was afair bit heavier than an M-16, are you suggesting he would carry both. Loaded an m-16 is around 4kg, the loaded m-32 with 6 rounds 7.5kg. I'd say it's a handy weapon but I would think one per team was a bit heavy if you were to loose the m-16. I'd be more inclined to have one per squad replacing the three single shot 203's. It would probably give you similiar firepower because of the shorter reload time. depending on ammo it's got an effective range between 150 and 350m, but it is fairly specialised. When I was looking at the W87, it turns out that there are a lot of these things on the market in various forms and have been for about a decade. So far no one has issued them at anything like one per team. I'd say it is probably useful in Iraq because of the type of combat but I'd doubt if you could justify dropping 3 M-16's from a squad in most circumstances. Still I'd probably put a couple in every Stryker, as it would come in handy, but I'd doubt I'd issue them at the same rate as M-203's if I was patrooling Afghan hills on foot. Peter.

US and UK to stop hitler, Aren't you kind of forgetting that the French declared war on Germany at the same time as britain, which was about 3 years before the US did, which I recall was the day after Pearl harbour. Funny that, it didn't start to be a world war against evil till the day after the US got attacked, up until then it was a European thing. Oh and before anyone mentions lend lease, the UK paid the money back with lots of interest, indeed we paid off another instalment just last year. Peter.

I am not as concerned about unit numbers as map size. With modern weapons having engagment ranges of over 2,000m then i'd like to see maps of ideally up to 5km by 5km, giving plenty of room for manouver etc. for me I'd rather have two companys fight it out on a 9km2 map tham three battalions on a 4km2 one. Peter.

Same problem using 10.3.9 and can't get the PDF to show anything but squares, had the problem before occationally too. Is the manual availablr on line as a HTML anywhere. Peter. Played twice got creamed about 45 times, good game better rhan I thought it would be, but no CM.... Peter.

Tagwyn, Iam not in favour of China, or it invading Taiwan, but I do find it interesting and I do take it seriously. You might think it is patriotic to talk up your own weapons and capabilities and rubbish potential opponents, but I'd rather take them seriously that be caught by surprise. I am less concerned about hyping our "KICK ASS" weapons than being prepared for their cheap, abundant, nasty ones.... Peter.

Paul Beaver a respected UK Defence Analyst was on the Radio today (BBC SCOTLAND) and his comment was that the lack of coverage or information, made him think that this was more like an "Excercise" than an assault. This is a massive sweep but it is more about being seen to be able to do it, and in testing the iraqi's in a mission of this sizes that an actual assault. Peter.

I thought the last F-14's left front line service in November. Peter.

Try looking at the chinese W87 I posted elsewhere, it can get off 15 rounds in under 2 secs. Peter.

Apparently when they perfect insects that they can "Totally" control, they are hoping to stand one for "President" Though I suppose that counts as politics.... Peter.

John, I think you might well be right, but I think UAV's have changed things quite a bit. Anyone who has a platform with high "Persistance" that can operate at above 5,000m can evade most ManPads and track down the kind of supply column that the insurgents use. Wouldn't be a problem for a Global Hawk, but Iam not sure about the summer "Hot and High" performance of the Predator, it might struggle. Peter.

Came across these when looking at Chinese weapons as part of my interest (Ok, fixation) on US V China. w87 9mm JS Type 99 What struck me about these is there suitability for MOUT. The W87 is claimed elsewhere by the chinese to be effective against low flying aircraft, and although it would be pretty difficult to use in such a way, if it does have a round that can penetrate 80mm of armour, then a single round could make a mess of most helicopters. In addition if you let of a 9 round burst against the side of a Stryker, I am not sure if you wouldn't get penetration, and I don't know how effective the cage armour would be. In addition there is the 10m (Chinese claim up to 20m+) frag radius. Even if the missed the Stryker if it hit a wall across the street it could still injure troops, especially if they were using the vehicle for cover. It doesn't have the suppression capabilities due to it's small mag, but for insurgents using hit and run and ambush tactics where they want to "Empty and Evade", then it looks useful to me. The JS 9mm seems another one ideally suited to insurgency. It's small, light, reliable and being Chinese probably, if not cheap then at least, fairly affordable. Add to that the fact that it is silenced and has little or no muzzle flash and again you have a weapon that you can conceal, use quickly, and then disengage before the enemy brings superior firepower to bare. The Type 99 is one of many 12.7mm snipers rifles on the market, and I believe, tough I don't know what it is called, that the Russians have a silenced one. It's fairly obvious how this would be an effective weapon for insurgents. Peter.

Splinty, If the US discovered those things nobody at the BBc would say they were wrong, though they might comment on the consequences, like the collapse of the oil industry or who gets to be immortal first and how many will die before it becomes universally available, which are pretty legitimate things to ask. That's actually one of the things the BEEB does very well, ask intelligent questions, that and questioning even intelligent answers. Peter.

I wonder if Buzzing will be an option. Flying low and fast over enemy positions to frighten them, get them to go to ground or break cover, but not actually attacking them with ordinance. It's been used in placed like Mogadishu but not really as a combat tactic I think. Peter.

This is just an idea for discussion and it would be a set of options that could be turned on and off. The basic Idea is that when you take command of a unit you are linked to a relevant figure on the board, the company commander, or in a multi player game one of the platoon commanders. At it's most basic, when or if that "Character" is killed the game ends. i.e. Your dead. A second option would be for the AI to take over ( which should be an option for AFKB anyway as in a real time go if you get a phone call or call of nature, you don't want your guys just to stand still) for a short period before you "resurrect" as the next guy on the chain of command. The delay would represent the confusion of the battlefield switch over, and would depend of troop quality communications volume of incomming fire etc. A third option would be to limit where and from what levels you could view, depending on your rank and command and control. i.e. you could only see from points where you actually had people instead of flying around, and you might only be able to see at lvl 1 ( ground level) for suppressed units etc. This is all a bit FPS so thats why I think they should be switchable options. Opinions please. Peter.

cassh, Though the UK doesn't have any ties to Taiwan, it has tied it's foreign Policy almost totally to the US with the "special relationship" now so central that there is an arguement to suggest that Uk foreign policy currently all but dictates that we back any US action. I recently read the Admiralty evidence to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, and the navy reason for two new large aircraft carriers was that" these are what the Americans think we should build". Peter.

SteveP, Just because thats how they are treated in CM1 doesn't mean that CM:SF needs to follow suit, I'd be happier with a system based on size rather than class, and one that treated a mortar like an HMG. Peter.

Though I am not a fan of bush if you need to replace old warheads and can make more accurate smaller yield ones that do the same job with less damage and use smaller cheaper missiles, and you don't go crazy and end up spending three times what you thought you would then modernisation makes some sense. If it tempts you to use them it's definitely a very bad idea. Peter.

As I've said before on similiar future CMx2 threads the problem with all of these is that like movies engagement is at rediculously short ranges, which are pretty unrealistic unless you invent "megaarmour" that somehow lets an infantryman carry better protection than an M1A2 but with weapons that aren't much better than today's. Peter.

SD Smack, I though it couldn't do that on a carrier, as the blades in forwardflight mode are larger than the landing gear. If it is being used by marines and it can't hover I thought it had to ditch, though I could be wromg. Peter.

It all comes back to possibility and probability and the balance between the two. If you try to head off every possibility you will probably dilute your efforts so much as not to be able to properly cope with likely events. On the other had if you focus to much on the likely you get caught by the unexpected. Adding risk helps a bit, as you can say it's unlikely but for gods sakes look at the consequenced. That's pretty much a central argument against nuclear power, they rarely blow up but when they do. The UK is immensly vulnerable to a surprise US nuclear attack, but doesn't do anything about it, because they just don't think it will happen ( although if people like me keep pissing yanks off you never know). Equally the pentagon through NORAD had the worlds most sophisticated air defence network, but it didn't stop AQ flying an airliner in to it. So it comes down to risk assessment and threat analysis, with no definite answer. The problem I have with the current US (and UK) force mix and choice of future programmes is that I think to much is being diverted to high cost capabilities where there is very low probability and even if the consiquences could be very serious, existing capabilities are adequate, while not enough is being spent on gaps in capability to deal with the current threat. Peter.

juan_gigante, I think the Pearl Harbour issue is important, The US would fight a lot harder and longer if it was attacked. That's the main reason Germany was so keen on US troops being stationed there. if a war started the Us would be locked in to fighting from day one. A fair number of immediately post war US politicains took the same view, as they weren't sure the US public would be up for fighting with a nuclear Russia to save the Krauts. ( I use krauts as it reflects the attitude immediately after ww2). Peter

LtCol West, Germany has no nukes, no large carriers or SSN's or heavy bomber force, nor an amphibious capability, and it seems to get by okay. I think the US and UK are still locked in to a cold war mentality and suffering from huge bureaucratic inertia. they are like supertankers that take miles to stop let alone turn around. Services tend to suffer from "finest hour syndrome", they tend to stick with what they know best or one the last war, So the UK spends $16bn on eurofighter because it wants a new "Spitfire" when it could have bought F-15E's for a fraction of the price and got all the capacity it needed by 2000, rather than not having full air to air and air to ground a decade from now. Meanwhile a UK squadie in Iraq gets £13,500 ( about $22,000 US), a bus driver in Scotland can earn £21,000 ($35,000 US). The fact that I have different priorities to the MOD doesn't make them right, or me for that matter. I am however, entitled to my opinion and though you are free to disagree with it, saying it's wrong because it is different is hardly scaling the dizzy height of intelectual arguements. I don't think at a time of real challenges both in terms of conflict and resources we should be indulging ourselves in pouring money in to over budget underperforming weapons systems, particularly when they are for marginal roles where we have good existing coverage which can be enhanced at far lower cost. And I especially dislike wasting money on big new Cold War systems whemn the Cold War is over. The US Navy has more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world put together.. Why, Because that's what won the war in the Pacific and that was it's "Finest Hour", so they have developed iconic status and become sacred cows. You never fight the nsame war twice, and you need three things to win it Money, Money and MORE MONEY. Even if you start with more money if you don't spend it wisely you can lose. Peter.

LtCol West, Man will probably never fight with Robots, though we will use them in our fights. If they ever develop conciousness based on logic they they will almost certainly show their superiority by realising that war is damaging, distracting, wasteful and rarely solves anything. I have my doubts that robots will ever be built, or allowed to be built that can " think" Like us, but if they are they should be smart enough not to repeat our mistakes. Some of the best of Azimovs Robots stories are near the end of the series when it becomes clear that by a combination of impersonation and economic control thay have actually taken over and are ruling us for our own good, and have been doing it for years and no only haven't fired a shot, but we didn't even notice. Peter.

Now it could be NetWar. BBC Technology news. Peter.

Splinty, "killed in action to be authorizesd to wear it". I know what you mean, but somehow I think you could have worded it better. Peter.