Wicky

hoolaman,

Links regarding what? A joke, perhaps?

Regards,

John Kettler

I am one of the ones who complained.  I came in one morning to look for a specific thread.  I found the first six threads started by John and another one only 8-9 down.  One was on emoticons, one was on some issue with sound on youtube, one was on a video of the T-90 which could have easily been just a post in several existing T-90 threads, one was on Grad rockets falling on a city in the Ukraine (which also could gone into an existing thread if it really was relevant), one on Russian field rations, one on a video of the XM25, and another on a training video that no one seems to where it's from, and one legacy one on the A-10 in US service.
 
So maybe 2 you could say were relevant.  Three are clearly not relevant, and a couple could have been just part of existing threads.  I have seen his behavior in other threads and the pattern is to spam the forum with so much stuff that finding anything useful about the actual game becomes difficult.  I don't mind the thread here and there about equipment or units in real life, but I have seen where this ends up.  I was just trying to point out that it would be nice to have the game forum have the majority of the posts about the actual game.
 
There is a general forum.  There are forums all over the web for this stuff.  I initially asked nicely to back off of some of that stuff.

A hearty +1 to what Thewood1 wrote. 

In no particular order...

My thanks to those who expressed concern and caring for me--whether or not they agreed with many of my views. Some of you desperately need to learn compassion, as evidenced by your vile posts. You'd best hope the kinds of things visited on me to date don't happen to you--unless you think you'd enjoy a stack of assaults and no less than four car wrecks.

My detractors (one with several warnings), as usual, spare no lies in their efforts to vilify and slander me. I have NEVER advocated drinking bleach. This is a deliberate distortion of a story in which a man put his Alheizmer's diseased wife in a very warm bath after first giving her a big dose of MSM, which opened up the pores and allowed the aluminum to leave her brain and bond to the chlorine in the weak bleach solution (about a cup of bleach for the entire tub of water). In very short order, she recognized her devoted husband and was able to function again.

JFK was killed by a cabal, and the key players are all now known. LBJ's personal attorney directly identified him as being involved in the plot. Also involved were key LBJ contributor Billy Sol Estes, Gov. John Connolly (My God, they're gonna kill all of us!), the Cabbell brothers (one Director of Ops at CIA, the other Dallas chief of Police; Kennedy had vowed to destroy the CIA), Hoover (in the coverup; hated the Kennedy's), the CIA's ZR Rifle, CIA personnel Hunt, Harrelson, etc., the Mob and someone later to become notorious, Carlos Ilyich Sanchez (the Jackal). He supposedly fired the kill shot. Am told there's a period picture of Bush Senior in front of the Grassy Knoll. He's leaning on a rifle (muzzle down) like it was a cane. Bush and Nixon were both in Dallas that day. The special Army Intel advance detachment which normally secured presidential visits by removing threats and closing windows along the route was ordered to stand down and not leave Ft. Huachuca, Arizona. This is just the tip.

I have spoken with an expert military rifleman who got to shoot Oswald's rifle, thanks to a former military connection with abuddy who later became a Warren Commission attorney. It was so awful that he got no hits, after 50 shots, on a full body target from 20' range! So, how did "Maggie's drawers" Oswald accomplish all those shots, firing down onto a car moving away from him (much harder than level fire on a static target, let alone with a rifle with a loose front scope mount and an action described to me as "felt like gravel" (improves speed and accuracy, right?)? If you knew the history f replicated condition firing tests, you'd know they've been epic failures. The only success was with a marksman and a thoroughly gone through weapon. Not even sure it was a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano, never mind the random thing Samuel Cummings's InterArms shipped Oswald. I've seen some of the InterArms Kar98Ks, and they were in frightful shape. And the Kar98K was a great rifle to begin with, unlike the Mannlicher-Carcano. Nor did 200+ people who witnessed things or knew things all die within the next few years, way before their actuarial life expectancies, by accident. They were murdered, with others intimidated into terrified silence.

My commitment is to truth, however ugly, shocking or outright incredible it may appear to be. Truth is, indeed, stranger than fiction. And well do I know it! In deference to Steve G, I won't take this any farther in terms of "Other" specifics. If you can't or won't accept the overwhelming evidence, that's your problem. Whole countries have now released their once classified files.

Regards,

John Kettler

P.S.

Loved the philosopher jokes!

Vanir Ausf B,
 
How's this grab you? Taken from here. aw_mm's #11, dated 8/26/14. I have never seen the like of the kind of detail. During the Cold War, analysts got all excited because the someone managed to image the underside of a T-72 turret, for some reason upside down at the tank plant, allowing determination of the cavity size for special armor in the turret front. This makes that look like a nonevent by comparison.
 
 
"ERA is highly efficient per thickness - afaik it is the most space efficient armor. The reactive elements in the Soviet Kontakt-1 ERA consisted of a 7 mm thick layer of explosive sandwiched between two 2 mm thick steel plates (so the total thickness is 11 mm) which can reduce the penetration of a missile warhead by 400 mm. The optimal protection is achieved when the ERA is sloped, but at the roof this is not necessary, because pretty much all top-attack weapons strike from an angle (except artillery bomblets).

The only thing I was able to find about the actual Soviet/Russian ERA used on their MBTs is this picture from a Russian news website/blog:


It shows trials done during the development of the enhanced roof protection in 1983. The (1) marks the 50 mm thick anti-radiation layer installed inside the tank. (2) shows the 40 mm thick roof armor made of medium hardness steel. (3) is a 2 mm thick steel layer for holding all stuff together. (4) is a 80 mm thick polyurethane layer and (6) marks a 10 mm thick armor plate of high hardness steel under which a Kontakt-1 reactive element is located.

So the whole array would be: 50 mm anti-radiation liner - 40 mm thick roof armor - 80 mm polyurethane - 2 mm steel - 7 mm explosive - 2 mm steel - 10 mm high hardness steel or 191 mm of armor of which 90 mm are part of the turret roof and 101 mm applique armor.
According to said blog (if Chrome translated everything correctly) the armor was tested against an artillery bomblet with a penetration of 200 mm (dent in the armor marked with (8) ) and was able to resist it. 
Such a bomblet strikes perpendicular at the armor, against a missile like Javelin which will strike at an angle a protection of 400 to 500 mm could be expected in my opinion. Still this wouldn't be enough to deal with the Javelin missile, but then again it is a prototype armor from 1983. I'd expect at least the T-90 (1992) or T-90A (2005) to have upgraded roof armor."
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Capt Toleran,
 
I would be at least checking it out, but I made a stupendous inadvertent error last night. In trying to get missing manuals back into the CBBN Documents folder after full reinstall of 3.11 (had trashed entire CMBN and secure erased earlier, only to discover no manuals were there in the Master Reinstall)
 I moved my Applications folder over Skype, where I figured it would just sit. Wrong. There was a whuffing sound, whereupon the folder vanished! I managed to find it, I think, but am having major drama trying to get things working properly, i.e, the presumed alias doesn't look right or work correctly, and there's a complete copy of the Applications folder which won't open. Am waiting for an urgent consult with my Mac Power User longtime friend, but that's hours away. Mean time, no way am I going to risk my CMBS DL by moving it to Applications. I sure hope you and everyone else get your connection woes sorted out. Am starting to think I was doubly lucky: Even though not sprightly, the DL went smoothly, and my highly random connection jammed right after I finished the DL. Whew.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

BTR,
 
I just rechecked the ones you posted.The first returned ERROR 404, the other, invalid request. The other link you provided has some cool stuff, especially given my former job and interests, but I don't see to what you refer, and the translate function is on what's effectively a useless page informing me Gurkhan's blog isn't there. What I do see are DVDs on the T-90, T-80U and such, with emphasis on building models. And oh the models available! Am I missing something, please?
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

image hosting without registration   In one of Britain's more audacious espionage ventures captured German officers were interned at Trent Park as M19 surreptitiously recorded their hair-raising exchanges. A slick PBS production exceptionally well filmed, acted and produced.
 
The story of how those conversations were recorded and how they can now reveal, in more shocking detail than ever before, the hearts and minds of the German fighter. In total, more than 100,000 hours of these secret recordings were made. Only now have they all been declassified, researched and cross referenced.
 

Currymutton,
 
Welcome aboard!
 
There is the game "Liar's Dice, seen below




and the book Liar's Poker, described in its Wiki,  
to which we can add a second "Liar's Poker," a game played with paper money.

Michael Emrys,
 
In light of item below, from an esteemed and official source, you've either mastered time travel or possibly have the Fountain of Youth in your backyard. If neither, Rip Van Winkle's suing!
 
http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/m/missouri-i.html
 
Missouri   (Steam Frigate: displacement 3,220 tons; length 229'; beam 40'; draft 191; complement 268; armament: 2 10-inch guns, 8 8-inch guns) The 24th State, admitted to the Union 10 August 1821, Missouri was named for the Missouri River, an Indian name meaning -muddy waters.-
I
The first Missouri, a 10‑gun side‑wheel frigate, one of the first steam warships in the Navy, was begun at New York Navy Yard in 1840; launched 7 January 1841; and commissioned very early in 1842, Capt. John Newton in command.
  Brother Ed, who lived in Shrewsbury for a year after moving from the States to sort out Inland Revenue's cyber chaos, possibly worse than the IRS here, has seen the Battle of Britain Commemorative Flight twice and been to Duxford, the IWM, the Royal Armoury, Hadrian's Wall ad infinitum. I try not to hate him. He's also flown in a B-17. Have to draw the line somewhere!
 
Regarding "Fury," I was appalled at how little actual use was made of the Tiger 1. We could've been treated to a flying shot like in "Gettysburg," showing the sweep of the efforts to flank the beast, but instead we got the treadhead version of Star Trek battles in which, for the sake of framing, the ships are shown so close together it's a wonder they don't collide near instantly.
 
Maybe we should blame the altogether too brief appearance of the Tiger on ill-considered contract language accepted in the rental agreement with the The Tank Museum? "Renter herewith agrees not to exceed 0.1 kilometers additional distance on the odometer of the Rental Item, hereinafter Tank. Renter agrees said 0.1 kilometer includes any and all distance involved with loading, unloading, actual movie shooting, reloading and other needful acts performed until such time as the Tank is off the Renter's transporter and returned to the Museum."
 
After the buildup of the real Tiger tank that was going to be in the movie, I found it depressing we saw so very little of the beast. What a waste!
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Enough about you - more importantly is the pickup truck okay?

Enough about you - more importantly is the pickup truck okay?

Enough about you - more importantly is the pickup truck okay?

Mark Twain once wrote his paper to inform them: "The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated."
 
To those who have expressed concern for my health and well-being, my thanks and I will reply to you individually as soon as I can get my e-mail program to send as well as receive. For all of you who may be interested, I will write a more detailed report as soon as I can and post it in the GF, which is I think a more appropriate forum for such discussions. But not to keep you in too much suspense, I will say here that on the 26th. of March I was struck by a pickup truck which resulted in 11 broken ribs and a broken clavicle (no, that is not a baroque musical instrument). Since then I have spent five days in hospital and about two and a half months in a nursing facility and only arrived home today. I am in pretty good shape due to some good rehab work by some dedicated people. More later.
 
Michael

Wanted to pass the word regarding an inexpensive ($3) Kindle book on Cold War Russian armor and other mobile weapons, to include SAMs. It's called Red Steel, is by Russell Philips, and it covers from immediately after WW II through the collapse of the SU, with tank coverage through the T-80, SP arty through Pion and MSTA-S and SAM coverage through SA-10. On balance, it's a pretty good book. Except when it isn't. There is a wealth of material, much of which wasn't in the threat docs I had back in military aerospace, so likely reflects post Cold War discoveries. Images are all over the place and confusing to people who aren't familiar with the systems to begin with. For example the acquisition radars for both the Shilka and the Tunguska are shown stowed. The picture of the T-64 is tiny, because the shot is the somewhat iconic one of a column of T-64s going through the TMS-65 jet powered decontam. The T-10 is on its angled war memorial plinth, and there are quite a few pics of AFVs in foreign armies and, in one case, a dead AFV but not obviously so. Two vehicles are represented by 3-view line drawings, which look like they came from an AFV ID guide. There are repeated surprises on what went into service and when, with many AFVs in full service before we started getting threat data (I started in early 1978 and watched developments unfold). In one case, the gap was around a decade.
 
What I found helpful in the book were the enumeration of the various tank model designators, the alphabet soup changes to the baseline and what they mean by way of changes. Pity he talked about the (US Army lingo) Dolly Parton and Super Dolly Parton (think her endowments), but  showed no pic at all. Rather marked appearance difference from baseline T-72s. Also good was the laying out of various protection options for a number of tanks (ERA, applique, Drozd, Shtora--alone or in combination). Again, most of which wasn't in the threat docs. He seems to think that for the T-62 w/ horseshoe armor, the armor is monobloc, when it in fact is spaced and w/o any inserts. He contradicts himself a few times, such as when he claims the SS-12 was the longest range TBM to serve, then later talks about the SS-23, which didn't serve long, but was a real sore point until the Russians killed it, as a gesture of good faith during the INF Treaty discussions. He doesn't realize that the 2 A3 Kondensator (406 mm Russian answer to US 280 mm Atomic Annie) was ever in service when claiming the Pion was the largest SPA to serve. Likewise, he completely missed mentioning the SA-6b (one TELAR and three TELs), the transition between the SA-6 and the SA-11. Some of you may be shocked to discover that certain SPA formations jump strength by 50% in wartime. Gulp. 2S1 is missing its nuclear capability, but you'll never look at FROG rockets the same again. The highest yield setting was a whopping 22 KT (Hiroshima was 15)! Another surprise is that the BMD seen running around in Ukraine with a ZU-23 atop it is NOT a field expedient; it's factory and is not only gun armed but carries two 2-man MANPADS teams--at least as originally intended. I wish he's said more about some of the technical issues, but what's there is pretty good for a mass audience book. Speaking of which, there's a German translation of this due out in February. Amazon's taking preorders now.
 
Since I no longer have Milsom's Soviet Armor 1917-1970 (purloined but may eventually get back), I find this book, especially for the tiny outlay, to be quite helpful. It has tons of tech specs, armor material, , weapon stabilization, gun launched ATGMs, construction details, performance and such goodies as armor slopes, composition and thickness, where available. I recommend this book, but encourage additional checks before presuming something of importance to you is correct.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

womble,
 
That was a tremendous reply, though am not sure how you did it after your head exploded. Mine's dangerously unstable as I type this. I think a significant part of my confusion lies in the discussion of the 3.0 upgrade and that the startup screen clearly says 3.1. Therefore, if I understood you correctly, what I have installed on my CMBN/CW/MG is the CMx2 engine, Version 3.1, right?
 
JohnO and pnzrldr,
 
Appreciate the RW ATK explanation, since it's jargon I'd not encountered before.
 
pnzrldr,
 
After watching ChrisND's tank-on-tank vid for a de facto ambush at 750 meters, I stand in awe of modern tank gunnery, at least in a static situation. There wasn't really time in the vid to look at the effects of nonlethal individual hits on the M1s, but I was astounded by how fast things fell apart for the US. Also, I found the Russian refire times to be very short. Since this engagement was similar in some ways to shooting tank gunnery tables, what do you see as being likely, for both sides, under battlefield conditions? If what I saw was any indication of likely outcomes, then we need to reopen the Abrams production line immediately.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Am wondering what happened to the "Joined on" data block (appearing in each member's post) we had on the prior version of the Forums. I always found that helpful in getting a sense of how to approach or respond to that Member. New arrivals view the game differently than do those of us whose CM experience dates back to the edge of myth. To them, CMx1 is something from the wargaming history books; to us, heady times (on several levels of meaning) with games which were formative, informative and even revolutionary.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

From my own crash research, I'd say the safe money is that, of the two, Lenin first said it, but Stalin liked it and used it himself. Regardless of source, it is one of the cornerstones of Russian military thinking. As a general rule, it's better to have two or three good platforms than one super platform. Not least because it provides for graceful effectiveness decay, as opposed to catastrophic loss of capability in the event of damage or loss. Likewise, we see Russian fighter planes carrying as many as ten air-to-air missiles, a scary sight to western military observers and analysts. But here again, we see the same approach at work. Having many missiles allows multiple firings to offset effects of jamming and evasive target maneuver, particularly when the missiles have two different guidance forms: radar and IR, maximizing the likelihood that one will, despite countermeasures, strike home and destroy the target. This is exactly what the Su-15 pilot who downed KAL 007 did. He doctrinally fired a pair of missiles as above. The radar-guided one missed outright; the IR guided one clobbered the plane. We don't ripple two missiles that way. Instead, we launch one AIM-120 and confidently expect it will hit the target. When they built diesel-electric subs, they built hundreds and hundreds. Individually, they may not have been all that good, but the resources required to deal with them were immense. They built lots of nuclear subs, too, though fortunately not in the same vast numbers, but more than enough to cause severe indigestion to people who worry about such things.

Regards,

John Kettler

Or you can use the other "Stopsign" shaped instant command which cancels all pending waypoints, erm, instantly.

db_zero,

Homophone errors are the scourge of the English language and must ever be zealously guarded against. It's especially easy to get trapped when writing something you've heard many times, yet never seen in written form. Also, spellcheckers won't save you from the wee beasties, either. I should know, for I've got trap scars to prove it. Two of my pet martial peeves are seeing "sight" for "site" in referring to weapon placement or fire control optics and the big no no, "ordinance" instead of "ordnance." Admittedly, the latter is not an exact homophone, but sloppiness in pronunciation yields the same net effect. Send in the calvary, er, cavalry! I always have to watch that one. Cav ul ree.

Regards,

John Kettler

DMS,

The Azov Battalion emblem is NOT the SS emblem, for it is a pair of Sigrun. It is very close to 2 SS PD and similar to 4 SS PD.

http://worldwarera.com/images/Insignia_Waffen_SS_Divisions_big.jpg

What you missed entirely is what's behind it. The Black Sun, a significant esoteric/occult symbol to the Nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sun_(occult_symbol)

Since this is now dangerously close to sounding like the dialog in an episode of Sheldon's "Fun with Flags" show within a show on "The Big Bang Theory", I'll stop here.

Regards,

John Kettler

Your FAC is calling in the arty? Well, that's probably the issue. A FAC calls in air. An FO calls in arty. Your FAC is telling the air coordination center what he wants. The guy back there has to tell his supervisor what the FAC just said. THAT guy, then runs to the next track and relays to the XO what was just said. The XO uses his cell-phone to text his buddy from the Frunze Academy (who is the XO of the arty regiment) what his FAC wants. The arty XO tells the sergeant what to do. The arty sergeant relays that on the radio to the battery fire control center. That FCC translates plain english (or Russian ) into digital commands and sends it the half-battery assigned to fire. After asking for verification.
 
It's not that it takes your FAC a long time to scream into the microphone that he wants arty, it's that the radio net/command structure is not in place to do so very responsively.

Imperial Sardaukar (you Dunes fan, you),

Am not sure which that hurt worse, my brain or my eyes, but I'm glad you got it sorted. Even with new glasses your version number looked like v1.11, which was very confusing when set against Game Engine 3 to its right. The icons are exactly as you understood them to be.

MikeyD,

I got some feedback from the HelpDesk that the Key on my physical CW disc didn't work because of some wonderful new scheme adopted by BFC which would do great things in the future. Happily, my problem got quickly resolved through the able efforts of Elvis and Moon. But since you're here, may I offer a suggestion regarding the core game and module icons? I thought they were buttons (tried clicking them repeated, in fact) which would take me to whichever version of CMBN I wished. That would've been slick, but they weren't buttons. I'd like to suggest that they be made buttons, for this would save precious time in getting to the right battles without having to first parse the in small, low contrast list. I have brand new three-way Progressives, and that list is still tough to read.

Regards,

John Kettler

I am merely concerned his hometown is unaware of his whereabouts, any insults you might have seen are simply on vacation with their transponders turned off.  
 
Also my town is well aware of my location thank you!  I filled out the proper forms several weeks ago when I moved.  
 
While totally off topic, did you ever find real numbers concerning the "5,000" Serbian civilian deaths during the NATO air campaign you claimed?  I was genuinely surprised not to have heard your follow up.  

sburke, panzersaurkrautwerfer, 76mm,
 
Clearly you weren't paying attention. My own conclusion was that somehow the tank type got garbled, and I do agree the use of the British designation for the purported Shermans is weird. I said the unit was designated the 4th Battalion, which it was. Am hardly an expert of Brigade 2506, but maybe the intention was to build it up to full strength, or perhaps to fool Cuban and Russian intelligence? Considering that during WW II, whole PDs had combat strength of as little as one tank, a battalion with 5 doesn't get me all that worked up. I called it a platoon, based on strength. The tanks were landed first, which was very fortunate considering what rapidly happened later to the transports via Castro's air force. The tank ramming incident is reported twice, and I thought it was a cool war story. Nowhere did I say the M41 in the Bay of Pigs Museum was the one which allegedly rammed the Stalin-2 in what presumably was a wild fight. What would you do with a gun that looked like a yawning chasm pointed straight at you? I like my survival chances better ramming than being an instant away from oblivion when out of ammo. Rather, I essentially said that the balance of evidence, from the training CO, to the combat accounts, to the trophy tank showed the Brigade 2506 force was M41s, not Sherman and that reports to the contrary were wrong. Think about it for a second. Let's say the ramming incident took place, and I believe it did.
 
There are quite a few tank ramming incidents on the Eastern Front, for example, so many Valera Potapov has an article (embedded in Axis Forum post on tank ramming) on that topic at Russian Battlefield. Also, Tank Archive has its own piece on the subject, the pertinent part of which is that one of the conditions in which ramming took place was when the tank was out of ammo. Sound familiar? As a dictator, are you going to let a light tank which rammed and wrecked your mighty Stalin tank aka giant phallic symbol be the trophy tank? No! You're going to quietly have that tank scrapped and the Stalin either secretly fixed or itself destroyed. Besides, it's more macho to have so overwhelmed the foe that you captured one of his tanks relatively intact. Looks better on display than scorched junk.
 
As for the nukes, having been very worried about being strategically nuked during the Cuban Missile Crisis, learning way later the Russians had 100+ tac nukes on Cuba had we landed made me both gasp and shudder when I heard it, but even worse was learning the FOXTROT subs the Navy so tormented had nuclear torpedoes and could've wiped out a whole carrier group! Had Bay of Pigs actually worked and a real bridgehead emerged and begun to really grow, especially sans direct US involvement, with Castro's forces losing, it's just possible a (or two given rather poor reliability) nuclear armed Luna/FROG rockets could've been used by the Russian commander. Goodbye landing no one knows about!
 
If that sounds far fetched, understand the MoD and CGS had already given nuclear release authority to the Russian CO on Cuba, with the weapons to be used at his discretion. You may also be interested to know that Castro was so freaked out by the Bay of Pigs he almost persuaded the Russians to let him keep 100 tac nukes to make sure there wasn't a second attempt at invasion.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler