Peter Cairns

JonS, The constraint on US spending is that, even if is static, defence spending has to sustain, upgrade and innovate all at the same time. Across the US defence budget there are a sees of debates from the A10 to the Future Rotar Craft that feature choices between cutting existing numbers to free funding for upgrades or wether to upgrade current platforms and extend their service lives or stick with what they have and put resources into successor programmes. Steve, My own reading of the US deployment decisions on APS is based on my view of their choices above. With choices to make and urgent operational requirements in Afghanistan and Iraq, the question probably was; "Do we put our resources in to developing and deploying APS in case of a major conflict against a near peer opponent in the next ten years or do we concentrate on countering the IED's killing our troops now" I think dealing with IED's was the right choice! Peter.

Steve, I agree with most of what you say about advanced detection based on object recognition being the next step but you might be missing the end of "The Tyranny of the Platform" When the Longbow Apache came in it was a revolution as it's combination of Microwave Radar and communications meant the detecting Helicopter didn't need to be the firing one. That ironically made the the Apache both the best helicopter in the world but also redundant, because if the targeting helicopter deoesn't need to be the firing helicopter and the firing helicopter the targeting one, neither needs to be an Apache. You can target with a MALE UAV (Medium Altitude, Long Edurance) and fit the front end of a Hellfire on to a Himar MLRS. The Himar costs £2m, the MALE £8m replacing the £40m Apache. The Apache can stay airborne for 3 hrs and carry 16 rounds but then would take the best part of an hour to return to base and reload. The Hale can target for nearly 24hours and the Himar can fire six rounds every 10minutes. The figures are rough but in essenes I think current technology suggest that although the M1 has years left and shouldn't be replaced the future isn't senior and weapon in a land based expensive heavy tank. It's multiple sensors on multiple expendable platforms feeding long range precision weapons that never see the enemy. Unfortunately it could be that if it reflects warfare accurately Combat Mission 2030 could be a really boring game!

C3k, iI wasn't aware that 120mm rounds maintained their velocity constantly, all other rounds decelerate, oh and nice to know that the computer on an M1 can do instantaneous calculations, load the gun and fire in half a second, including flight time! I kind of suspect it's easier to make a system that pops smoke on detection, than one that calculates range and a firing solution quick enough to load fire and hit before it activates. Peter.

Steve, Not really low tech. Unlike the WW2 version where you manually lined up the two images from lenses a know distance apart ( about 5 ft...) and then read off the distance, it would be a computer that compared the images digitally and the laser between then estimating the base of your triangle to 100ths of a millimetre in a mater of seconds. As detection and response get faster the ability to hit before they know your there gets more important. From what I've seen there is a general movement with things like the SDB, to use imaging and GPS over lase designation. One of the big in game advantages the US has is the Javelin because until you here the whoosh when it launches you have no warning, but then it's usually too late!!! I should also add for those that may think I have a downer on Russian kit, I think the new unmanned turret with the full set of APS, gun, missile and sensors that doesn't intrude in the interior space and can be used across a range of vehicles is one of the smartest ideas I've seen in a long time. Getting roughly the same set of weapons and sensors as a Bradley in a lower profile vehicle without the old soviet problem of the interior being too cramped is little short of inspired. Might lack a bit compared to the Bradley in terms of the quality of the sensors and weapons but compared to the BMP or BTR it goes a huge way to closing the gap! Peter.

As we are sort of now on the topic of the vulnerability of active defence, giving away your position I wondered if anyone knew if Parallax sights might be worth another look. Old style range finders used them, to lenses a set distance apart and when they are brought into focus by comparing the different angles and knowing the distance between them you can calculate the range. Lasers do it more accurately and faster but as we all know from playing CMBS pretty much every combat vehicle carries a laser detector and a fair number effective countermeasures that can activate before the first shot is fired. Modern Parallax might be two HD all spectrum cameras on either side of an M1 turret with a laser between them linked to a computer. It might not be as quick or accurate as Lasing your target but it wouldn't give away your position. peter.

Vanir, I think as the game is set in 2017 and you wouldn't expect to see Armatas fielded till closer to 2020, the US has close five years to put an AESA detector on a squad level UAV. I'd say that is easily doable. Peter.

MJohn, As ever thanks for the technical stuff. If I follow you correctly what you are saying is that although the T-14 has an AESA radar based on that developed for the T-50 stealth fighter it would operate at a low power set to limit its effective range for APS use to dozens of meters, which makes sense. The Russian "Super tank" blurb mentions the range of the radar as being able to detect targets at 100km which is what lead to my "Christmas Tree" comment. I double checked JSTARS and as ever you are correct in that it isn't specifically equipped for long range radar detection. None the less I am still pretty convinced that a tank equipped with an active radar would be vulnerable to the US with it's networked C4I, as even if the T-14's radar was short range the US can still in a short enough time rely a detection by a hand launched drone back all the way to a ATACMS unit 200 nm away that could saturate the area effectively. I am of the view that the best tank ever is the T-54/55 as it has proved it's worth in conflict after conflict doing what tanks are best and and mostly supposed to do.....killing infantry. The focus on Tank v Tank we often get misses the point. Rather than head to head it is more like Rock, Scissors, Paper...... Tanks beat Infantry, Helicopters beat Tanks, Infantry beat Helicopters. The T-14 will be great against Infantry but may well be more vulnerable to airpower if it rely on radar for detecting for it's APS. Peter.

Although they are being phased out for a unitary warhead, the Army ATACMS has a range of 160 miles and can scatter 570 bomblets with a CEP of 10-50m. I'd say that getting all your submunitions in a 200m circle 80%+ of the time could be done in all but the smallest CMBS maps and if I remember correctly with 8m boxes in the game grid an even distrust ion of bomblets would be pretty close to one each if 570 were all live. The ATACM has it's origins in the late seventies "Assalt Breaker" programme designed to come up with ways of disrupting and defeating Soviet Armoured formations so it may well be valid today. I know they were used in both Gulf conflicts but don't have any info on what the targets were and how effective they are. It could well be that the threat alone would force a Russian force to disperse them widely making them less effective and perhaps creating another reason to make them expensive in the game..... You just wouldn't find a lot of them in the one place. Peter.

Currahee 150, I suspect the US would identify the T-14's radar from about 150nm using JSTARs as they can detect a cars ignition at long range, let along an active radar. That then gets handed off to MLRS closer to the front with a range of 40-70nm. These things would shower the area with thousands of bomblets which would take out the Armata or fully deplete their APS. Thats the dilemma for the Russians...In order for their ground forces to survive US surveillance and airpower they need to rely largely on stealth but they seem to be at least in part relying on an active radar for protection which negates stealth. As I said at the start the Armata would be good against almost any opponent but the US because the radar that gives it an advantage over almost any other Tank makes it vulnerable specifically to the US's superior C3I. The way to simulate that in the game as well as the problems they Russian economy will have making them in any numbers would be to make them cost more than twice what an M1 does for a tank that is, even if a lot better than a T-90AM, probably still inferior. Peter.

Two points one technical the other I am afraid political. firstly if the Armata really does use an radar system at the core of it's APS then that is fine and effective for almost all potential opens until it comes up against the US when it will be electronically lit up like a Christmas tree and last minutes. Any realistic BS scenario with a Regiment of 30 Armatas against the US would have artillery and air support cut that to less than 10 before the US force even entered the map. On the political, be it the Ukraine or Syria it is now pretty clear that Russia is operating outwith the norms of international behaviour, simply creating whatever version of the truth suits it's purposes. This would be a real concern if it actually had the economic capability to back up its boasts.. But it doesn't! Peter.

Bit of a technical question. Do the stone walls in the game represent actual stone or concrete blocks? I would suspect that the stone in rural stone walls would be actual stones and offer the best protection, although I suppose the stone I get near me in Scotland (largely granite) might offer more protection than limestone (Fortress Italy). If the stone walls were actual stone, depending on what issued in Ukraine then they would be better than brick, but if they were block, especially light weight they might not. In the same way as in warm climates where as the frame of a building is reinforced concrete. Most of the blocks are clay and hollow which might mean that even small arms fire can penetrate. I am not sure what the norm is for buildings in the Ukraine so I wondered if although the same walls are offered in BS and SF if the protection they offered differs. while posting I should put in my long standing request for chain link fencing. If we take a simplistic view that Walls & hedges interrupt sighting, Fire and movement a solid high stone wall is best at all three, a bocage wall is good at the first and third but not in terms of protection, while a rural wall can be good at one and two but doesn't so much imped movement. High chain link adds a new element because it impedes movement but not really sighting our fire! oh and as I am asking is it possible to request rough ends for rural walls so they can sort of fade out or be more irregular going up and down in height. It wouldn't add much to game play but would add realism! peter.

just an odd question, given the 100th anniversary has anyone ever suggested doing a one off WW1 CMX2 scenario, or indeed a pre WW2 CM game. Peter.

This on the BBC NEWS site this morning! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34425454 last time I posted it was a crossover between this and Shockforce because most people are here no and it was that the BTR 82 had turned up in Syria. It was really about what from BS could be ported to any SF2, but it got locked as off topic. I understand why MLRS have been excluded but the scenario here might be their use in ones and twos rather than battery's so it might be something to consider at some point. I suppose it comes down to whether BF want to stick to their own scenarios for both conflicts or allow people the stuff to create things closer to what is happening on the ground, such as BTR 82's in Syria, Buratino's in Ukraine or the insurgent irregular elements of SF like IED's available in BS. Peter.

Posted this in shockforce but thought I'd put it here too! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34131573 Peter.

This from the BBC TONIGHT.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34131573 Time for an add on? Peter.

Don't know if this has been posted already but it's the best review of all four new Russian Vehicles I have seen. http://www.janes.com/article/51469/russia-s-armour-revolution Things that struck me as interesting or possibles! The top mounted APS on the Armata turret roof look like they might be designed specifically to deal with Top attacks like Javelin. The T-15 is a back to front T-14, an odd but typically Russian solution. The T-15 could well be designed as an anti Infantry companion to the T-14 on the basis of recent Russian combat experience. What do people think of the idea that the T-14 isn't actually a tank at all but rather a tank destroyer rather like those the U.S. used in WW2 and should be seen in that context.

I've probably asked for this before but as there is a new game out. Once I've played a QB I'd like a Replay or Reverse Option, so that I could play it again with exactly the same forces and conditions from either side. Just asking! Peter.

One of the things I have long wanted in SF which I hope makes an appearance at some point is Chain Link fencing. It is an everyday piece of terrain but I think it would add to the game because it impedes movement but not fire and would be a tricky addition for Mout. Railings is another example of the same thing from ornate iron to modern high palings and the types of metal shutters for shop front security. Roadside ARMCo and crash barriers also fit in with this type of terrain as they can stop a wider range of vehicles are harder to destroy and give a different type of protection. Of and while I am on I'd quite like to get Trucks in civilian colours. Peter.

Don't know if this has been discussed before but given the visual similarities between current Russian and Ukrainian forces and the that this will be a conflict with much greater electronic warfare that Shockforce will their be a far higher propensity for friendly fire events particularly with air strikes. Peter.

I don't suppose at some point in the future we could have Thumbnail pop-ups in the editor. Specifically with regards to buildings, foliage and Flavour objects it would be handy if when you selected an option a thumbnail picture of it appeared so you could check it was the one you wanted before placing it. That way you would be saved the frustration of waiting to render a 3D view only to find it wasn't the building you wanted for that position because the ridge runs N/S not E/W like the rest of the row!!! Peter.

Just Pre-0rdered CMRT for delivery to the UK for $82 plus a possible additional tax so call it close to £60, which though I am happy to pay isn't cheap. So is it to much to ask that we get if not a specific printed Mac Manual then at least a PDF. with details of the correct Mac key changes for the map editor. I'd also like to have at least a bit of guidance on exactly what conversations you need to do to files to import a map from a Mac format to a PC as more than a year after the feature arriving I still can't use map overlays. I am past the stage of needing to figure the basics out but in the early days it really was trial and error to toggle through the various building features and I still have difficulty some times when assigning groups and reinforcements to the AI as the key combinations on the Mac don't match the PC ones in the manuals. Peter.

This might have been covered before as I am not on here that often but as CMBN doesn't simulate boats I wondered if they will be part of the CMMG module. Given the fact that BF tries to put something new and different into a new module and the fact that this is one of the key events of MG I would have hoped it would be in for both historical reasons and because it would have allowed scenario designers to add boats to a whole range of scenarios. Is it in ?

Just some thoughts on UAV's i Shockforce 2. I think there should be two broad types simulated, Man portable and higher level. The small launched ones would be acquired like weapons from a vehicle or issues with the TOE and would work like a weapon in that they would be targeted on a specific point like light fire. Once they reached that point they would act a bit like a spy, giving you a view of that area and a link to the firing unit. like spies depending on the type they would have limits and be vulnerable to close units. so you wouldn't see everything and you could lose them. The higher level ones like Reapers etc. would work like an Air mission with point or area targets and the possible choice of Observer or Strike. Unlike a tactical unit deployed UAV sighting from these would be available to a wider number of units. You would effectively have three support options; Artillery, Air and UAV. I think doing it this way would make including UAV's easier to do in game design terms and would be easy for players familiar to the game mechanics to get the hang of. What do people think? Peter.

Pak40, As an occasional poster I had missed the "Ditch Lock" thread. Is it coming with CMMG. Peter.

Sorry for all the mistakes, I don't usually use my iPad for posts! Peter.