Peter Cairns

I seem to remember in one post Steve mentioning something along the lines of a convoy scenario, ( although it might have been when discussing the new victory conditions for CMx2 being more complex). Either way if they aren't in as a graphic option like "coloured" faces, in the game scenarios, then you can't put them in your own scenarios other, it's like the M1A2 debate, they aren't a major part but a lot of people would like them in as they might play a secondary role in a Stryker scenario, but being in lets you use them in QB's and future scenarios. I am not directly comparing female soilders with M1A2's although I have seen some pretty rough ones in the British army. Peter.

sgtgoody (esq) I am begining to think no anount of technology is going to make you see the point of this. It was considered laughable 100 years ago that we would be able to bend light with radio waves so that it would go round corners, and heres the thing.... It still is because it doesn't work and you can't do it. My arguement isn't technological it's theoretical,.. Because the effect is dependant on the position of the observer, and must be specifically designed to fool someone at a particular point, regardless of the technology used it won't work for multiple targets at different ranges. This isn't about fibre optics are light sensitive fabrics, it's about geometry, and technology don't change that. A computer might be able to calculate 142x167 far faster than any human, but the answer is still 23,714. What technology can do is get the answer quicker but it can't change the answer... Peter.

The diesel electric idea gets round the battery problem, as the are too heavy and fuel cells to expense so far. However a big weight saving with the system is that you don't need a transmission or drive shafts, which are not only heavy but a bugger to repair in the field. Looking to the future their are two technologies that although still very much in the lab could combine to radically change things. Growing organic crystals that act like silicone for chips is progressing slowly, but we already have some types of plastic chip and plastic VDU screens. Of more importance is the growing effectiveness of plastic batteries, layered polymers that can store a charge. The second line of technology is plastic armour, making vehicles out of the likes of Kevlar as opposed to aluminium or steel. If (and as of now it's a big if) you can bring these two technologies together then you get an APC, with light weight plastic armour which is also the vehicles power source. This means not only do you save weight, but space too as you don't have the engine, which gives you more options on internal layout. It also greatly reduces the risk from fire, and if you read my post a while back on the subject is well suited to integrate, electric armour. Iam not sure if a plastic armour APC, would be any more bouyant than a conventional one. I had always though that this would be a good basis for vehicles in a near future CM:SLoD. Peter.

sgtgoody (esq), Many of the terrorsits do want to destroy Israel, but they do not represent the vast majority. They do habe the support of the majority because they are fighting the enemy, but for the majority it is the West Bank that is the big issue. Take away the big issue and you greatly reduce the support for the enemy. A lot of people in the arab world have some sympathy for Bin Laden, but nothing like the support they gave Arrafat. Deal with the palastinian issue and you are half way to winning the war on terror. Thats not appaisement, thats common sense. Bush Snr, made a series of high profile promises on the issue that helped to create the broad coalision that liberated Kuwait ( hell it even had the Syrians in it). The failure of Clinton and his boy to follow through, was the best recruiter Bin Laden ever had. Like Stalingrad, digging in and reinforcing a hopeless position, isn't noble or brave, it's moronic. Peter.

sgtgoody (esq) Your missing the point. No one is saying you can project an image, but any image you project will only work for one viewer at one range. If the light level and image size work for someone at 15m and hide you, they will do the opposite for someone at 50m and make you stand out. And as Steve said, as soon as you start moving that constantly changing image will be like having a flashing beacon on your head. Regardess of new technology the nature of light and the importance of the views position might make it impossible to make work. Peter.

I don't think turning away from Israel would solve all the problem. But if being seen as more even handed and fair, got a large number of those 1 Billion to give the US another chance, or look it it a fresh, then if you haven't grained the pond, you've certainly dropped the water level a fair bit, That makes them easier to see or drives them down in to the mud where they will be less effective. People talk about being prepared to do what it takes to win the war on terror, well here's a bold tactic that might just strike a real blow against them. Try standing up and saying " WE WERE WRONG"... to often people get themselves looked in to a sort of no backing down no surrender position where all they are actaully doing is digging in for trench warfare. I think If Israel ( with some pushing) gave up the West Bank, in terms of terror things wouldn't get that much better for close to 10 years, but in 20 it would be down to little or nothing. If we keep on like this I think we'll still be here or worse in another 50, and who wants that...... Probably a bad comparison but maybe it's a bit like Hitler ( and I am definitely not comparing the Israelis, or anyone on this forum with Hitler) refusing to allow a retreat from Stalingrad for political reasons when the military realities on the ground said the situation was hopeless. Do we all really think that those who fled to Israel after the war had a vision of fifty or so years on of an armed state trapped behind barbed wire and barriers it's people living in constant fear for there lives? Is that what any of us want it to be like for Israeli's fifty years from now. Peter.

Two more points. first on losses as I have said before " it's not how hard you can hit, it's how much you can take", that can decide both a battle and a war. Depending on who's figures you use Vietnam, the North Vietnamese lost 20 for every 1, US dead, but that 1 was ultimately unacceptable to the US. However one huge tactical advantage of a fast networked force like stryker that no one seems to have picked up on ( and it may well be a scenario design issue), is that it can run away. This might be seen as a defeat by some, but if it results in a short engagement that identifies and slows an opposing force to allow Stryker to disengage to either regroup or bypass while LR Artillery and Air Power, degredate the static opposing force to dust, then it's no defeat at all, in fact it's the smart way to win. Secondly the effect of going at 30-50mph on a Stryker, is only effective at close range at 90degrees. A speed of 40mph, about 20ms. at 200m, you need to track at about 5 deg a second, and at a MV of 1,500m a second lead by about 1m, which on a 6m vehicle means aim for dead centre. At longer ranges the the tarck drops but the lead increases, as the time from fire to impact increases. However if the target is comming straight towards you then you needn't track or lead, because regardless of his speed, relative to you his direction isn't changing. This becomes really important when you are in a fight with fire from more than one direction because while being at right angles to one opponentand hard to hit as you move, you could be effectively showing a stationary Ass to another. Which brings me back to the dispersed quality infantry force with good AT weapons. Peter.

Abbot, The point about the sonic booms is that as a tactic they are completely counter productive. As Mao put it "To get the fish you drain the Pond" , you try to isolate these people from the population, not turn the population towards them. It's all very well to talk about getting tough and hunting them down, but if you are heavy handed and are seen to be unfair, you simply create a bigger long term problem. What makes short term military sense can be a political disaster that causes far more problems than it solves. One school of though about Somalia was that it was things like flying "Littlebirds" at roof top level at high speed over the city that really started to turn people away from the US as people bringing security to an enemy, and in a city where almost everybody had their own AK-47 that turned out to be a very bad tactic. "My enemies Enemy is my friend", or "Backing your allies regardless" even if they are doing something stupid, is very poor policy. Regardless of the roots of the issue, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank for over 40 years, has been bad for America. The west backed the Shah in the cold war, and ignored the fact he was a thug. So when he is overthrown, what do we end up with, a regional power that hates our guts, thirty years later. Even in Vietnam, but intervening and backing a line of Governments in the South that were corrupt, unreliable and unpopular the war was bloodier and more prelonged than it need be. If you want Real Politik, hows this, As Israel doesn't evn have 10 million Jews and there are 1 billion moslems in the world, introduce and even handed policy and have sanctions against Israel to open up and dismantle it's nuclear programme to win over Arab and Moslem support. Look at the odds, your backing the side that's out numbered 100 to 1 and surrounded. Sure it means turning on an ally, but if you want peace and security for your own country ask yourself this. Just who has this alliance benefitted most, Israel or the US, and who's been footing the bill for all these years, Israeli tax payers or American ones. For me it's been the tail waging the dog and the US is backing an ally that has done more harm than good to US interests for decades. Peter.

I also recently read something about the UK looking at a diesel electric option, with the main engine feeding power to eight electric motors one at each wheel. Apparently like US trucks that use a similiar system, if gives better economy, is more reliable and better off road performance. I am not sure if that if for the "Boxer" or for a later version or an alternative. Peter.

Steve, I think it's more about tactics than equipment. for me the real advantage is with who gets the first shot. Thats why in this and other posts I've emphasised the importance of recon and tempo. seeing him first and forcing him to fight your battle at your pace. Having said that the danger for the stryker force is is it gets slowed to a hault or looses it's mobility, ( a bad thing for any kind of force). Once this happens and it starts to turn in to a free for all , then many of the advantages can dissappear very quickly. For me real danger is that in many respects we most Western armies haven't fought anyone of quality since WW2. The bulk has been insurgents and third world armies ( I remember the commander of the British ground forces in the Falklands, describing the Argentinians as "Military Pygmies"). I am looking forward to seeing how a Stryker forces does in hilly rocky terrain with scrub and light tree cover against a well Disperesed, Organisied, Trained and Motivated infantry force with plenty of Antitank assets. Peter.

Michael, This passion for watching things doesn't extent to womens changing rooms does it...... Peter.,

I am stunned as to just how sensible this thread has turned out to be, I really was expecting the worst. I think like ethnic faces, women should be in. So hows about a comment from BFC, just on the point of inclusion rather than different physical attributes. Peter.

Overall what I have read suggests less overall stamina but better concentration under stress than men. I remeber comming across research from the states that said that they had fewer accidents in police persuits as drivers than men particularly if it was a long chase. better concentration under pressure, and better overall attention span. Stands to reason really, they can spend three hours in the same shoe shop. Now thats attention span. Peter.

The way to simulate it will be like anything else, how you organise your units and operate them. If you don't have people in the right place doing overwatch, then the sniper can fire till his hearts content. thermal imaging can't see through hills, walls or round corners. If he's straight ahead, or you have covering weapons, then how long he survives depends on what you hit him with, in which case, he's either, dead, paniced supppressed or moved. basically it's the same as CM, the weapons don't work by magic or do it themselves, it's about the choices you make. Peter.

Although things do breakdown regularly in combat, i think a lot of basic stuff today is pretty relable compared to WW2, so if breakdown was to be put in, I'd rather it was abstracted with units slowing for part of a turn or dropping in firepower for a short while, rather than actual breakdowns. I'd hate to have the focus of the game move from being a field commander to being the local handy man. This comes in to the territory of the old remanning guns debate, where if it was included it was feared that it would make people to "Gamey" and start to have people utilies something that was rare far to often. Peter.

I saw a quote about interchanging the rear section in about 1 hr , so if it was amrketed as a feature of the design, I hardly think it was aimed at factory managers.... Peter.

Michael, Gee why didn't I guess that you'd be a plane spotter, well you had to do something when you were away from the key board. Could be worse I suppose, it could be trains. Still Look who's talking, I am in to politics, how sads that. Peter.

The UK uses a french one called an Off-route mine, it uses a thing called a "Misznay Schardin Plate" to form the slug. Don't know much about it, but I am sure if you Google about a bit you'll find it. Peter.

I know there was a discussion at some point about other than white faces for US troops, although I think it was before CM:SF was announced, but what about women. Given that they are now more or less routinely to be found in or near the front line, they should be in. The controvercial bit is whether it should be anything other than done graphically, for example if part of a team haulling a 120mm mortar over rough group should they fatigue more easily. personnel I'd say no as it is either unrealistic or the difference in real life isn't worth the effort, or that other than the modelling aspect it isn't worth the coding time to model such a small and limited difference. But I can see this one opening a whole can of worms... Peter.

Iran has already supplied UAV's to groups in the Lebanon, who flow one in to Israel earlier this year. Peter.

MikeyD, You can judge Stryker as a combined arms military force on the basis of one member of the extended Family of vehicles linked digitally in to a cohesive unit over a wide manouver area. Thats missing the point, It's like righting off a sherman because the 0.5 is jammed, It's only part of a much bigger weapon (The whole damned tank). You have to look at the Stryker company as a weapon system rather than a collection of Individual vehicles in the same way that a trained squad isn't just nine guys. Having said that I am not as enthusiastic as Steve. But then i am not writing it off like some either. Peter.

So NG cavscout, It comes down to might is right, One set of rules for the big guy ( written by the big guy) and another for the little guy (also written by the big guy). I was reading today that Israel has resumed flying jets a low level at night over the gaza strip creating deliberate sonic booms that terrorise the 1 million inhabitants. Israel being a US ally, if your rules are correct then. 1) We should hold our breath for a UN resolution with any teeth like sanctions to get them to stop. 2) No one in the world but "terrorists" will do anything military to strike back... and I suppose, I should at 3) Hell will freeze over before there is peace in the Middle East. Peter.

Well I don't like TB, but it's not bias in the sense of attacking hime because he's the British PM, it's becasue he rushes in Mouth first and that is always a bad idea in a sensitive diplomatic incident. Also he was speaking at an EU conference as acting EU president, and regardless of our issues over Iranian involvement in Southern Iraq, thats a British Iranian issue, Not an EU one. The EU had earlier issued an agreed statement and he went beyond it. If the French had been in the Chair and had gone way beyond the British position because of a French Iranian issue ( played the whole thing down because of trade) people in the UK would have went nuts... Like I said the Iranians seem to have elected a Jerk that shoots his mouth off without thinking, It doesn't help that the UK has done the same. It's $60 a barrel for oil, I think if we can avoid it and there isn't any other way we should avoid a war of words or worse with the worlds third ( I think) largest oil exporter. That doesn't mean I agree with the guy or like the Iranian governemnt, But until we start to see "Sticks and Stones" we can remember that names won't hurt us... Peter.

Couple of points. Firstly I tend to agree with most of Steves points, but again my main point was on recon. Your chances of survival with a light force ( and as it is vulnerable to a 30mm gun, for me Stryker is light even if it has great firepower at it's disposal), are limited if you let something that can hurt you get the first shot. Thats true for any force of course, but if you tend to be lght then there is greater risk. Playing my son CMBB hot seat he used to love playing Elite King Tigers. I would counter this with regular US Hellcats and most times ( except flat open terrain like a billard table) would come out tops. Pretty soon he would drop one or two KT's and pad out his force with PZ11's and I started loosing HC's like a turkey shoot in a barn. So lets drop the idea of T-72's a go back 30 years to the old Soviet SPG-73, Recoiless rifle. flat bed mounted parkable under cover movable by three men on foot, this becomes in it's way a more dangerous weapon than a hull down T-72. Equally a dual 23mm taking a Stryker on the side will if no take it out certainly carve up the squad inside. Finally the idea that a squad that's taken 80-90% casualties is still as dangerous because one man can fire a javelin is rubbish. I doubt that one US ( or almost any other army in the worlD) squad hit that bad would be even returning fire, let alone engaging the force that had done the damage directly. In fact I doubt that even if it had then it would be trying to stand it's ground with 40% casualties. True as a dispersed force the real risk would be from the other Jav teams in the company, but I wouldn't ecxpect a squad that pasted to contribute much for a while at least. At this point the engagement starts to be about who suppresses the other side first. Once you degrade the opponents ability to ruturn fire sufficently you start to gain the advantage and become able to consentrate more and more firspower on fewer and fewer targets. Stryker has a huge advantage in being able to use speed and mobility to get more shots in first and more quickly and to turn the table to it's advantage. However I will tell you all now, if not in Iraq, then sooner or later a Stryker force is going to blunder in to something and get absolutely pasted, 40-50 dead. At that point the very survival of the concept will be in question, because regardless of how well it has performed up to then, it's enemies will decend on it like vultures. Peter.

Michael, Your right to mention shape, watching a flight of F-16 fly over my house (They fly over the Black Isle occationally on their way to the bombing Rrange at cape wraith, Saw an SU-22 a few months back , think it was Romanian) and of the three that i saw one stood out from the others as it had a centre line tank that cast a black shadow on part of it's underside. Even though It was quite a clear day it was a bit hazy so the grey worked quite well, but that shadow made it hard to miss and once you spotted it the other two were much easier to find. I suppose the visual advantage of things like the F-22 and F-35, will be the internal bay preventing that kind of thing, although the opposite might be true when you start putting Hellfires on UAV's. It might be better to use a UAV stealthily to call in other assets that to expose it by arming it. Peter.