antawar

I have this problem too ! anyone has a solution ? anyone ?

There you are, pics resized

cool, the first pic was taken by a Nikon D2H and the second one with a Nikon D70. (i'm a camera grog ). Where did you get the pics ? Those are unmodified straight out of the camera originals since I could read the exif off them. The exif is the file indicating what were the settings on the camera, like shutter speed, aperture and all, I can tell you the second one was taken at 09:32:27 on june 19th, very recent :eek: It also tells me the guy didnt use his flash, geee I wonder why Those pics are 100% sized, do you want me to reduce them in photoshop for showing in the forums ? I downloaded them. I can send you the scaled down versions by email so you can put them on your server [ June 21, 2007, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: antawar ]

I have to agree with Steve here. The british are not a "class act" like some people would like to believe. I can draw a LONG list of atrocities and heavy handed behaviour associated with the british. Just as an example: the first bloody sunday in Ireland, where the "Black and tan" drove into a stadium where a football match was being played and opened fire on the crowd with heavy machineguns and ran over the players on the field with their armored cars. second example: the second bloody sunday in the seventies. Where paratroopers opened fire on a crowd. third: example: back in 1837, there was a rebellion in Canada, french AND english from québec were protesting against "taxation without representation" and wanted their parliament to be responsible and have real powers. The British army burned, looted and raped all along the St-lawrence river in response. Fourth: During the Boers war at the beginning of the 20th century, the british inaugurated the use of "concentration camps" where conditions for the boer prisoners were dismal. fifth: I'm not even going to mention the numerous atrocities committed against non-europeans/non-whites by the british. Suffice to say that the "dum-dum" ammo, forbidden by the geneva convention, is named after the city where it was first used by british troops. They opened fire on a crowd with them. Not to mention the deliberate starvation that was caused by deliberate british colonial agricultural policies in the third-world colonies they possessed (including India)over the centuries. They even used those agricultural tactics here in Canada, driving thousands of french canadians to flee into the northeastern US because of the lack of food and work. That's why you got so many people in the northeast with french family names. Need I go on ? Americans are not saints and the British surely arent. Occupying a country is a messy business and has always been heavy handed. Such is the nature of the beast. People usually dont like being occupied so fear and intimidation has been the answer more often than not.

I dont know if anybody read my post carefully. I was saying that any discussion about US vs Russia is far fetched because the US will not attempt to invade Russia period. I also wanted to provoke some discussion about how the US army would fare against a foe like russia defending its own territory. 800 000 soldiers would be for defeating the regular army. It would not be enough as an occupying force. Also remember that I did say the occupation would end in failure if it is ever carried out successfully (unlikely) because there wouldnt be enough troops to effectively prevent a monster insurgency scenario from developing. WHen I read the asnwers, I find out people are not actually reading the posts.

I've been reading all the comments posted by Steve and forum members that are part of the US military and basically I deduce one thing from it: If The US ever wants to conquer Russia, it may become the first would-be conqueror to do so The Russian army and air force would be decimated in the field with minimal losses to US forces. (I have a different opinion but i'm being sarcastic here). Basically a cakewalk ! Even if it is a realistic scenario (which I doubt), if the russians are smart, they will be aware of the near certainty of such an outcome and will fight in the cities (kind of a return to medieval warfare, with the US besieging and attacking strong points.) When they are defeated but not after inflicting severe losses to US forces in Russian cities, they will start a pre-prepared insurgency that will make the Iraqi one pale in compariso. They will have WAY better light weapons (an ambush with thermobaric weapons and RPG-29s (850mm pen) would be deadly) superior military sense and aptitude compared to the iraqis + 10-20 times the numbers. After a few years it would be intenable for the US. Why invade Russia ? because the Russians can't deploy much outside of their territory and that's the only way you guys would get a US-russia confrontation. I strongly believe the US would need to reinstate a draft to actually consider invading Russia, it would easily take over 800 000 soldiers to achieve (and for occupying and pacifying). SO NO CHANCE OF IT EVER HAPPENING. It sounds pretty far fetched but the discussion seems to be headed in that direction. Basically, it's pretty unrealistic to think that the US would go head to head with Russia and vice-versa. I didnt even talk about nuclear weapons. During the first scenario (an irresistible and speedy US advance), the most likely outcome would not be GIs dancing in Moscow but 500 millions dead people in the northern hemisphere + a nuclear winter for all, since Russia would launch an all out nuclear attack on the US civilian infrastructure and all its support bases around the world when it senses its losing. Same thing with China with China not being able to cause as much damage. [ October 17, 2005, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: antawar ]

m1a1 commander Could you elaborate on that battle with lot of losses to RPGs ? What's "lot of losses" .. 2-3 tanks or bradleys ? How does the M1A2 fares against RPG ?

Syria HAS bought and already deployed the kornet in the thousands. As for the numerical superiority argument: at the operational and strategic level, you may outnumber the enemy, but at the tactical level, in some cases, you may be outnumbered. also, in irak, the US had less tanks than the iraqis even if the US had more tanks in its inventory worldwide. It all depends how many you deploy for a given conflict. Of course, the Iraqis were so astoundingly inept it didnt make a difference. As quoted in a document referenced in another thread (the Biddle docment): A cavalry troop (14 vehicles) was ambushed by an entire iraqi republican guard battallion (more than 44 vehicles). They fired from the flanks at 800-1000 meters (all the US vehicules had their flanks fully exposed), 16 125mm shots were fired, NONE OF THEM HIT. That's really INEPT.

I agree, infantry tactics will be the emphasis. PLus we will only rarely see the M1s or other big tanks. Mostly strikers and BMPs. Stryker and BMPs are pretty much balanced, especially the BMP-3s, which has superior firepower (30mm autocannon, 3 machineguns, 100mm HE gun). The syrians are rumored to have bought some. Concerning air power, that can be balanced too. The syrians have a whole lot of SA-16 MANPADS and have now bought SA-18 Man portable anti-air missiles. Those missiles are equivalent to the Stinger and are very effective (SA-16 and SA-18 have been credited with a few apache kills and a few NATO airplanes in the balkan wars, remember that Harrier that was shot down live on TV in 1995 ? a SA-16 brought it down). Also, you dont need to shoot down airplanes to make them innefective. You can actually degrade their effectiveness a lot by area denying with anti-aircraft missiles. A LOT of missions in Yugoslavia were cancelled because of heavy anti-aircraft fire over the target area. They didnt want to risk losing airplanes too much. In Iraq, a whole Apache brigade was ventilated by antiquated Zu-23 anti-aircraft guns during a very well planned ambush. The brigade was out of action for weeks for repairs. Same would happen in syria. If the US player insists, well, then he may lose a few planes and that would impact victory conditions a lot. Thus give the syrians something to defend themselves with in scenarios involving air power. Not to mention the fact that the syrians may be able to get some choppers in the air. Back in 1982, the Israelis had total air supremacy over the battlefield (with AWACS coverage too) and the syrians managed to use Gazelle choppers with HOT missiles pretty effectively. At one point they ravaged a column of Merkava tanks in the Bekaa Valley. So a similar situation may not be far-fetched. Terrain is difficult in the area of the Golan, so there is plenty of opportunities for concealed movement. [ October 11, 2005, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: antawar ]

There has been a lot of posts about the fact that the syrian army would be outclassed by the US army in that game, thus making multiplayer games really unbalanced. Personnally, I dont think that's an issue. In Combat Mission, when a player plays the US with Sherman tanks and faces a german player with tigers or Panthers, do we hear whining about "un-balanced sides". Same will happen to T-72s/T-80s against M1s. As an example, you simply give 10 T-72s to the syrian player and two M1s to the US player. And avoid making scenarios including such units in open desert. They should take place in the golan heights or in urban areas where the t-72s can use covered approach routes to get close to the M1s. If the US player is bad, he will soon find out that his M1s are very killable. If the Syrian player is bad, he will soon find out that 10 T-72s employed badly dont last long against even only 2 M1s. If both players are good, it will be interesting hehe So I dont think it's really an issue. Another way to balance things out would be to give the syrian player lot's of kornet anti-tank missiles along with the T-72S so he can use the kornets to neutralize the m1s while using the T-72s as an armored reserve ready to exploit advantageous tactical situations.

It depends on what version of the rpg-7 you are talking about the basic version of the PRG-7 can only penetrate 330 mm of armor. You basically need to aim at the engine compartment from behind or the top armor and pray. Not much behind armor damage either. The RPG-7V can penetrate 600mm, which can sometimes penetrates the side armor of an M1A2. To get assured penetration you need to hit a weak spot (there are some) on the side, the top or the rear of the tank. now the russian have a new RPG called the RPG-29: This baby has a 105mm warhead (compared to 73mm for the RPG-7) so it causes much more behind the armor damage and it can penetrate 800-850 mm of armor, easily punching though the side armor of an M1A2 (600mm protection against heat). As for ATGW: the russians have two that can really ruin an m1's day: Kornet and Krisanthema. Both have penetrations of 1150-1200mm of armor, which means the only area of an M1A2 that can resist this missile is the front of the turret. Rear, sides, top and the frontal hull can be penetrated easily. All these weapons can be found in the inventory of some of the armies that the US may face in the future (including the enemy in shock force: Syria) Oh and BTW: Syria qualifies as a second world army. Javelin and tow-2, apilas, m136 are great too but not much chance of seeing them in action against US armor.

excellent site !!!!

I just played a scenario I designed myself.. a company of A-10s against a company of M-13/40. The best result that the allies had was a tactical defeat where they lost all their tanks and the italians had only 5 left with two gun damaged. I played it many times and the results were always in the italian's favor. The big difference is the behind-armor effect of the 47m gun installed on the italian tanks. Most of the time, they only need 1 hit to disable (and even put on fire) a british tank. The british need 3/4 penetrating hits before disabling an italian tank. The two pounder is really puny as far as killing power is concerned. I also tried the 75mm AA gun that the italian have. Two of those guns accounted for 16 Mathilda II tanks destroyed, many brewed up. I replayed my test scenario (featuring a bataillon sized attack from the british) 3 times and every time the 75mm rules the mathildas. Need to kill Mathildas as the italian player, pick a 75mm AA(one got 14 kills in the first replay). I'm awaiting your comments. Good night

Hi guys, I'm looking for good soviet winter uniform infantry mods. I can't find them except on combatmission where you can get the petchokama forma ruleset. They cover the early period and not for every type of infantry (engineers someone ?). I need good late war russian infantry uniforms with white camo smock. ANd while i'm at it.. no german late war winter uniforms eithers.. the totally white smocks with the white helmets. Anyone knows where to get these ? Thanks

Yeah we noticed the chaffee, and the italien M13-40

Hi everybody! Was wondering, are the ethopians included in the game ? Thanks

Hi everybody! Was wondering, are the ethopians included in the game ? Thanks

Hello Andrewtf ! First of all, congratulations for the superb uniform mods that you have created over the years. They are beautiful. I would like to know where I can get your winter smock soviet infantry mods. CMMODS doesn't have them anymore. My hard disk crashed too and I lost them. I already have the padded winter uniform for the soviets but I have nothing for the late war years (white smock soviet). Thank you

I won a tactical victory as the russians The trick is placement, place all your forces at the right flank and human wave them with the officers following quite a bit to the rear.. they overwhelm the german positions... then reorganize and advance your troops through the woods and roll up the german left flank... works everytime unless the machinegunners get lucky...

I'm looking for CMOS 4.0 compatible mods... I've already downloaded all the mods on the Combatmission HQ page... I won't install any mods not compatible with CMOS... why are people still issuing uncompatible mods when this is such a wonderful and easy system ? Btw: my mod index site has not been updated due to lack of cooperation and time... Regards, Patrick

Well.. Well.. we must watch out.. seems like some english speaking people know french around here... Bonjour maman !!! Pascal Di Folco: monsieur Vae Victis en personne

You think you're a god... I got a tactical victory as the germans.. 1 more turn and it would have been a total victory (didn't have the time to destroy the bunker with satchel charges.. thus the church position remained a ? robbing me of a total victory)

I'm offering my site.. http://pages.infinit.net/antaress And as for same day delivery.. well.. people have lives so it's impossible to be as quick as professional sites on the updating.

lot's of screenshots at http://pages.infinit.net/antaress

Hi everyone ! Is there anyone working on winter uniform mods ? Here is a wish list: Winter Uniforms for both axis and russian: both sides greatcoat version, kapok (padded winter uniform) version, russians with winter fur hats (chapka), white camouflage uniforms. You can add your wishes too... I surely forget something.