Dook

It seems that the ACU Nomex coveralls are already being issued, for final pre-production tests anyways. From the above-mentioned Army Times article: November 06, 2006 Going cammie Aircrew, tankers adopt new uniforms to blend in By Matthew Cox Staff writer Army fliers and tankers will soon don digital camouflage uniforms to help them blend in with their fellow soldiers. Uniform officials at Program Executive Office Soldier are finalizing two new versions of the Army Combat Uniform: the Army Aviation Combat Uniform and the Improved Combat Vehicle Crewman Coverall. The effort follows the Army's decision to replace the battle dress and desert camouflage uniforms with the ACU in June 2004. Like the aircrew and tanker uniforms soldiers are now wearing, both new ACUs are made of flame-resistant Nomex fabric to protect these soldiers from fuel fires, a risk more associated with helicopters and armored vehicles. "Essentially, all we are doing is upgrading the aviation and vehicle crewman community's uniforms while we upgrade to an ACU pattern," said Al Dassonville, deputy product manager for Clothing and Individual Equipment. Still, both new ACUs also have been redesigned with new features. Uniform officials began working with the armor and aviation communities last fall to learn what changes needed to be made. The Army Aviation Combat Uniform will change more. It replaces the Improved Aircrew Battle Dress Uniform and looks very similar to the ACU most soldiers wear. But the AACU adds zipper closures to the jacket's two upper sleeve pockets and two breast pockets, as well as to the two thigh- and calf-level cargo pockets. The pockets also have a Velcro-like strip to close them. "The pilots like the zippers," Lt. Col. Steven Wolf, deputy commander of the Operational Support Airlift Agency at Fort Belvoir, Va., said, describing how they help keep small items from falling out of aviators' pockets and damaging aircraft instruments. "It's just more secure." The new AACU also has several unique features unlike the ACU and existing aircrew uniform. •Upper sleeve pockets are slightly larger and sit farther back on the shoulder than those on the ACU, which is supposed to allow aviators to carry heavy items more comfortably. Shoulder pockets from the older aviation uniform have been removed. •Like the ACU, the jacket features Velcro-style backings for name, Army tapes and rank. •A pen pocket on the forearm is similar to the one on the ACU, but covered with a flap closure. •Velcro-style waist tabs on the AACU jacket are aimed at preventing fabric from snagging inside the aircraft. •The deep pleats in the side cargo pockets have been scaled back to prevent snagging. •Both calf pockets feature a smaller pocket sewn to the outside for smaller items. For the armor community, the biggest change the new uniform brings is the ACU's digital camouflage pattern. The armor community decided few additional changes were needed, said Maj. Clay Williamson, assistant product manager for clothing and individual equipment. "They didn't want to make many changes to the uniform," Williamson said. "They were happy with it the way it was." Cammies will be a change for the armor community, which has always worn a solid color, Dassonville said. It was easier to manufacture the Nomex blend fabric for the vehicle crewman uniform in a solid color, he added, but recent technical advancements in the fabric industry have changed that. The new vehicle crewman uniform will eventually feature: •An ACU-style pen pocket. •Velcro-style waist tabs. •A reinforced seat. Uniform officials first presented the ACU pattern to senior Army leaders in December 2003. After its approval in 2004, Sgt. Maj. Of the Army Kenneth Preston and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker directed the new uniform to be fielded to units deploying to combat theaters beginning in April 2005. New soldiers began receiving the ACU in October 2005 as part of their clothing bag issue. It became available for purchase at Army military clothing sales stores in April. Active, Guard and Reserve soldiers will be required to own two sets of the ACU by May 2007 and four sets by May 2008. So far, the Army has fielded about 5,000 of the first 10,000 new aviation uniforms to units such as the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, Texas. Equipment officials plan to begin fielding the first 10,000 vehicle crewman coveralls by the end of the year. The Army plans to field enough to outfit the roughly 75,000 soldiers in each of the armor and aviation communities, Dassonville said. Soldiers who receive this first batch of vehicle crewman uniforms are part of a final three-month user evaluation, Williamson said. Uniform officials will take that information and make any small adjustments needed before the uniform goes into full production. "We don't want to build anything if it's not acceptable for soldiers," Williamson said. "There is no way we would know that without putting it on soldiers' backs. They will find ways to tear things up that no laboratory ever could."

I don't have sources to back me up on this, but I'm reasonably sure that larger squads (e.g. 12 man) are more resilient under fire than small squads (e.g. 8 man). One component of morale is losses suffered as a percentage of the total squad, so when a small squad suffers a casualty, the squad takes a bigger morale hit than a larger squad would have. On the question of whether the larger squads are easier to hit, I don't have an answer. The fact that you can stuff two small squads into a small building but can't do it with larger squads suggests that the game recognizes that large squads occupy more space, so it would be reasonalbe to assume that they would be more vulnerable to area effect weapons, like artillery. I'm less sure about vulnerability to aimed fire, like small arms.

Madmatt, I think you might owe Gen. Mattis royalties for your sig. Game looks great, now get to work on that Mac version!

Steve, The first thought that jumped into my mind as you were describing the fantasy battle that might give a Syrian armored force a chance against an outnumbered US armored force was the Battle of 73 Easting from Desert Storm. Although the details vary slightly, it was remarkably close to the scenario you describe. Bad weather meant the US forces had no advance warning that they were moving into Iraqi positions. The 18th Brigade of the Tawakalna Division of the Iraqi Republican Guard (one of the best Iraqi units) conducted a prepared positional defense against a frontal attack by a numerically inferior force. The Iraqis did not surrender readily and conducted numerous counterattacks during the battle. Still, the Iraqis were nearly wiped out. Eagle Troop of 2nd ACR (9 M-1 Abrams and 12 M-3 Bradleys)knocked out 37 T-72s and 32 other AFVs in 40 minutes. Three US cavalry troops destroyed and overran an entire RG brigade (113 vehicles destroyed, total) with the loss of only 1 Bradley. [Note that Wikipedia's numbers are slightly different, but not enough to make a difference]. The years since 1991, even the ones since 2003) have been a heck of a lot kinder to US armored forces than they have to the Syrians or any other armored force in the Middle East. I would expect any similar confrontations in the near future , in the very unlikely event they occur, to produce a similar result. Of course, that's the whole point, isn't it? Similar confrontations are unlikely to occur precisely because they will end the same way. Any even marginally competent adversary of the US will seek to avoid such clashes and engage using other methods.

The term I think JasonC had in mind is Fabian, after Quintus Fabius Maximus, who was named dictator by the Roman senate in 217 BC after the Battle of Lake Trasimene. The Fabian strategy of avoiding pitched battle, preserving a force in being, and harassing and wearing down Hannibal's forces, was effective but unpopular. The Roman senate removed him from command. His successors chose to confront Hannibal more directly and were defeated at the Battle of Cannae. Manlius Capitolinus was a Roman consul in 390 BC who supposedly saved the city from besieging Gauls.

--Warning! Pedantic word usage intervention ahead!-- It's bromide, not bromine. --All clear--

This thread is a very impressive example of what makes this forum great. An inexperienced player posts a question in a calm and polite manner and forum regulars devote considerable effort to providing him with detailed answers. I learned something too - range for acquisition effect is approx. 25 m. Thanks to all.

I just wanted to put my own plug in for the beauty of Kingfish's maps. I snipped out a small section of his Strada in Chianti map, placed some flags, and had a great map for a battalion-sized, PBEM fight that has been going on for 6+ months (Yes, we're two working dads who play slowly).

The main equipment differences would be the addition of Light Armored Vehicles (LAVs), Assault Amphibian Vehicles (AAVs), and different aircraft (Cobra attack helos and Harrier jets). The squad structure is also substantially different - 13 man squads divisible into 3 teams compared to the 9 man squads divisible into 2 teams for Stryker brigades. Could make for some very interesting Blue-on-Blue play.

Saw the Stryker MGS at the AUSA Meeting today. I asked the GD rep when he expected it to be fielded. He said it is currently in low-rate production and is undergoing gunnery trials. The next decision point is summer 2007. Assuming that decision is favorable, he expected the Army to start fielding them soon thereafter. Amazingly enough, he was unaware of CMSF. Could be a giant marketing opportunity for GD.

The AI doesn't do assault boats (or windows). You can't play against the AI if it has assault boats.

Three reasons, from what I know: 1) The basement of the Archives 1 building in downtown DC was flooded this summer during a massive rainstorm and the repair costs have broken the Archives budget. 2)Weinstein is a political hack who, despite his academic credentials as a historian, does not appear to believe in free, public access to historical records. For his most well-known book on Soviet espionage in America, Weinstein's publisher paid a group of retired KGB agents a substantial sum (supposedly $100K) for exclusive access to KGB archives. Other researchers have had their access restricted as a result. Weinstein has also refused to make available to researchers the tapes of interviews he conducted for an earlier book after the accuracy of his accounts of those interviews was challenged. 3) Weinstein's attitude regarding public access to information reflects the current administration's belief that the public has no right to know and that it knows best what information should be made public. As Harry says, the recent announcement of the change in the Archives' operating hours is nothing short of a disaster for historians and anybody who cares about America's past.

Steve, Probably not detailed enough for your needs, but here's what's in the Jan. 2006 issue of the German magazine Military Technology. Land Forces Personnel: About 300,000 (including about 150,000 conscripts), plus about 100,000 reserves. Structure: 3 corps HQ (1 in Golan. 1 in Lebanon. 1 cadre) 6 armoured divisions (each with 3 armoured brigades, 1 mechanised infantry brigade. 1 artillery regiment) 1 Republican Guard armoured division (same composition as the other armoured divisions) 3 mechanised infantry divisions (each with 2 armoured brigades, 2 mechanised infantry brigades, 1 artillery regiment) 2 independent armoured brigades 4 independent mechanised infantry brigades 6 artillery brigades 7 parachute brigades 10 special forces (commando) battalions 3 SSM brigades (SCUD, FROG, SS12, SS21). Equipment: MBTs: About 1,400 T72s, 1,000 T62s. 200 T-55MVs, some 2,000 T54s/55s (mostly stored) Armoured cars: 400 BRDM Is, 600 BRDM2s AIFVs and APCs: 2,300 BMP1s, some 1,500 BTR50/60/152s and OT64s Artillery: 2,600 122mm, 130mm, 155mm, and 180mm towed; 400 2S1 122mm SP, 50 2S3 152mm SP; 100 mm antitank guns Mortars: 81mm, 120mm and 160mm MRLs: 122mm, 140mm and 240mm SSMs: 24 FROG7 and 18 SCUD B launchers (60 missiles); SS12, 18 SS21; M9 (reported but dubious);coastal artillery brigade with SSC1, SSC2,SSC3 ATGWs: SNAPPER, SAGGER, SWATTER, SPIGOT,SPANDREL, HOT, MILAN, KORNET AA guns: 23mm, 37mm, 400 57mm, 85mm and 100mm towed; 300 ZSU234, 10 ZSU572 SP SAMs:SA6/7/8/9/11/13/-18. NB: At least part of tbe T-72 fleet is being upgraded. US and Israeli intelligence sources have reported a contract being negotiated with Russia for the possible supply of ISKANDER tactical surface-to-surface missiles, but this was denied by the Russian authorities or the deal is anyway not expected to proceed. IGLA MANPADS on order. The purchase of the S-3(K) PMUl SAM system is being negotiated. Hope this helps.

I play on a Mac against two regular PBEM opponents, both of whom use PCs. There are no compatibility problems - for any of the current CM games. Note, however, that the way some e-mail programs, especially web-based ones, handle attachments might cause problems. Such problems can be avoided by zipping the text file before attaching it.

How many scenarios have you downloaded? In CMBO, there was a limit to how many scenarios would be displayed from your scenarios folder. Not sure if that is true for CMBB and CMAK, but I would expect so.

Since TOW is described as coming out at the "end of 2006," does the above quote mean that CMSF is not coming out until 2007?

You probably had casualties set at 50%. You get 4000 points to purchase units but only 2000 pts worth will show up once the game starts. The same basic process holds true for other casualty percentages (e.g. with 10% casualties you get 2222 purchase points, with 30% casualties you get 2857, etc.)

Way back when, I tried the CMBO demo Valley of Trouble with no fog of war. My FOs were immediately targeted by the Germans and destroyed pretty quickly. It took me a while to figure out that playing on a "harder" setting like full fog of war actually made the game easier in some respects. Since then, it's been full (CMBO) or extreme(others) for me. It would be really nice to have a play testing setting that allowed you to see all of the AI's actions but prevented the AI from observing your's.

As JasonC's answer suggests, no squad has enough ammo to sustain an unrestricted fire fight for the full length of any (reasonable) scenario. The key is to use the ammo your squads have when it is most effective. In general, the serious casualties in CM occur at fairly short ranges, so better to save your ammo for when the enemy gets close and in the open. If you have some rifle heavy squads with a fair amount of ammo, you might use a few to slow the enemy's advance into those covered pines 100m away (although that is probably a job better performed by MGs set far enough back from your front positions to avoid spots). The goal is to create enough time pressure so that the enemy has to advance rapidly and in an unorganized fashion toward your positions.

The US nuclear stockpile was virtually non-existent until after 1947, when post-war production began. At the end of 1945, the US had the components for 6 weapons, but they were mostly unassembled. By the end of 1946, there were 11 weapons; by the end of 1947, 32 weapons. After production kicked in, the US had 110 in 1948 and over a thousand by 1952. See the excellent database here. Even if there had been more nuclear weapons available in the late 1940s, delivering them would have been problematic. Initially, the only delivery vehicle available was the B-29, which had a range of 4,000 miles. The US would therefore have to use overseas bases to launch the bombers. Once the bombers were launched, there was no guarantee they would get through in sufficient numbers to make a difference.

And perhaps their spelling.

It was here but it looks like the images are no longer available.

I designed the scenario, so I guess I should reply first. The Tigers were from schwere Panzer-Abteilung 504, which, to my knowledge, was not an SS unit but was supporting the 16. SS-PzGr-Div. The StuG was from the SS division's Panzerjager-Abteilung and the attacking infantry were from the I. Bataillon of SS. Panzergrenadier-Regiment 35. The sharpshooters and MGs in the town probably ought to be SS. Sorry about that, my oversight.

Three Iraqi divisions against the equivalent of one Western brigade. Sounds fun . Red on red capabilities wouldn't help either. The Kuwaitis had Chieftain tanks. Most of their other equipment was from the UK too. They only purchased the Yugoslav versions of the T-72 after the war.

I found this document , an MID WW II chronology for July 1944. The section on the Med. theater has the following details: On the 23rd, "6th SA Armd Div meets stiff resistance and heavy shelling as German troops continue to hold positions on slopes of M. Fili, W of Greve." On the 24th, "units of 6th SA Armd Div capture Li. Domini, 7 mi. N of Radda, and occupy town of Greve against stiff opposition." On the 25th, "24th Guards Brig of 6th SA Div pushes to Pt. 621, E of Greve, against heavy opposition." On the 26th, "in vicinity of Greve, fierce enemy resistance prevents advance of 6th SA Armd Div, which repulses number of strong enemy counterattacks." This web page suggests the Germans might have been the 29. PzGr Div.