imported_Captain_Wacky
-
Posts
24 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by imported_Captain_Wacky
-
-
How much better are the thermal sights than the ones on the TOW?Just prior to 9-11 I was a Heavy Guns platoon commander with 2/23 and that was when the Marine Corps was fielding the javelin. I went through the Javelin gunners course. Outstanding weapons system and a far improvement over the dragon missile system. It is bulky and not ergonomic to carry dismounted. But the javelin missile will turn a T-72 inside out, is fire and forget, the warhead can track moving targets while in flight, has an awesome thermal sight on the command launch unit (CLU), etc...It is expensive, but if used againt enemy tanks and helicopters, it pays for itself. In my opinion, if is saves one US casualt y but wiping out a building with enemy inside, then it pays for itself.
I heard they were bringing back the LAW but are they phasing out the AT-4 as well?The AT-4 is still issued as a munition to fireteams/squads and now there is the re-engineered LAW, with an HE warhead. The new LAW is lighter and actually more effective than the AT-4 against soft targets.[ January 06, 2006, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: Captain_Wacky ]
-
It also costs something insane like $125,000 for the launcher and $75000 per shotOriginally posted by flamingknives:Javelin is just under 50lbs all up, but has a 2500m range and kill probability in excess of 90%. The British Army is using it to replace their Milan systems.
-
Nah, if there was we'd have found it alreadyOriginally posted by Cpl Steiner:As Christmas is soon to be upon us, I'd like to suggest there might be a better way to solve our differences rather than bombing the crap out of each other.
Just a thought.
-
The Marines don't even use the M24, we use the M40. BSOriginally posted by M1A1TankCommander:This came from the marine's father, so mistakes are possible(as far as the proper nomenclature)
-
Will CMSF also model lazy weapons carries that severely restrict the ability of the soldier to employ his weapon quickly in a firefight?Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:
-
The doctrine was never really "no women in combat", but no women in infantry/tanks/artillery or units whose principle mission involves combat. But a woman 7 ton driver can find herself in combat just as often as her male counterparts. There are plenty of women who've ruined insurgents days in Iraq leading convoys.Originally posted by MikeyD:I thought the last gasp of 'women not in combat' doctrine came back around the Panama invasion. You've got to define combat VERY narrowly to say they're not participating.
The +100lbs of gear that an infantryman wears into combat throws these arguments out the window. Most women just can't handle that and perform at the same level. And brute strength isn't just a nice thing to have, its a necessity when you've got to carry your 175lbs buddy out of harms way, plus his +100lbs of gear, as well as everything you're carrying.You are indeed opening a whole can of worms.While it is certainly true that men are, on average, stronger in terms of brute strenth, There's considerable evidence that women have the physiological edge when it comes endurance, and that their bodies also deal much better with prolonged physical extertion under difficult conditions (such as extreme heat, etc.)
So you could argue that female soldiers should fatigue *less* easily than men in many combat situations. . .
-
Yup, was just going to mention this, you can actually somewhat see this in the photo Steve posted above, tooOriginally posted by KwazyDog:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by fytinghellfish:
The M203, when mounted on an M16A4 rifle, doesn't have the heat shield. The M16A4 has the Pitcatinny Rail system, so the grenade launcher, and damn near everything else on it can be taken off pretty easily.
I also found many where the 230 sight wasnt attached either but we can certainly add this if its use is the norm.
Dan </font>
-
I'd wager you played CMBB in spite of this.Originally posted by RCHRD:[QB] but I cannot buy this game. It's purpose is to simulate the combat that ensues from an aggressive invasion, unilaterally, and without just cause. [/qb
-
Read the selection again. When does a CM player ever command a unit within another as small as a buddy team? Never. Read the whole AAR again, it also has a whole bunch of other things individual Marines are responsible for that are outside the scope of the CM player-commander. Unless you want to personally supervise each of your little pixel soldiers crimping their blasting caps and prepping their C4...or you can just let the game abstract it and the AI handle it, which is probably what is going to happen.Originally posted by Drusus:From the AAR thread:
"CASUALTIES MUST NEVER BE LEFT BEHIND! The squad leader must ensure that every Marine moves with a buddy. Each buddy is responsible for pulling the other out of the fight if he goes down. The squad leader and fire team leaders must have accountability for all their Marines at all times. There is no excuse for Marines being left behind in a building while the squad pulls out."
If it is in scope of the squad level tactics, I think it is in the cope of CM's tactical scale.
-
Your tactics will change if you have to worry about wounded becoming prisoners. I would have thought that was obvious. </font>Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />How in the world is this relevant to the outcome of tactical battles?
-
How in the world is this relevant to the outcome of tactical battles?Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:A while ago I started a thread on 1:1 representation of casualties. Most thought this was a bad idea, as it wasn' the company commander's job to worry about casualty evac in the middle of a battle.
However, now that we know the setting of the first game, namely near-future US operations in a middle-eastern country, casualty evac must be much more important than anyone originally thought.
I would like to see wounded US soldiers appear during a battle, who can subsequently fall into enemy hands and be paraded on TV!
Seriously though, avoidance of capture of US wounded must now figure very highly in the US player's mind in such a setting, or it isn't a true simulation.
-
The SMAW can fire a thermobaric rocketOriginally posted by fytinghellfish:I don't know if there are infantry-level flame or thermobaric weapons in the US. I never saw any when I was in and the latest one I'd ever heard about was the M202 Flash, from the early 70s or so.
There are thermobaric versions of Soviet missiles and RPGs, though.
Actually, now that I think about it there may be a thermobaric version of the AT4 LAW for the US now.
-
For the same reason that they might not want to play CM:EL (Einsatzgruppen cleanse the Lebensraum), or CM:RD (Redcoats whip the Darkies), or CM:SG (Soylent Green). They find the subject matter distasteful. </font>Originally posted by Soddball:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Heil3451:
I don't get why people will refuse to play as US forces in a Syria setting in a COMPUTER GAME for seemingly political reasons.
-
I don't get why people will refuse to play as US forces in a Syria setting in a COMPUTER GAME for seemingly political reasons.
-
-
I agree with you, but Im amazed that people don't seem to understand one crucial point:Originally posted by Ivan Drago:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sunray:
I guess it's going to be a sort of 3D supercharged version of TaCops? Had it been exactly that (the cold war getting hot)then you would have experienced what I believe all BB/AK players feel when they play those WW2 games. This feeling is that they are "taking part" in a titanic struggle, the outcome of which is in doubt. That's what makes it so exciting, quite apart from the incredibly accurate gaming engine care of Battlefront.
THIS WILL BE POSSIBLE TO MOD WITH THE CM:SF ENGINE!!!
You already have Soviet-style weaponry and armor. You have MBTs, APCs, AK-47s and with the upcoming modules, NATO forces.
I'm willing to bet that this will be one of the first 'total conversions' done for CM:SF by the community.
Hell, you can even simulate some utterly crazy Germany vs. England scenario (assuming modules include U.K. and German units, which technically Steve said they'd hope to do) with the Blue vs. Blue option that Steve specifically said will be included! </font>
-
Does the U.S. have a way of preventing like-kind attacks? </font>Originally posted by David Chapuis:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Heil3451:
A few seconds. The counter fire is out before the incoming hits the deck.
-
A few seconds. The counter fire is out before the incoming hits the deck.Originally posted by David Chapuis:I read a while back (cant remember where) that the US had some sort of anti-battery system that uses the trajectory of enemy artillery and mortars to calculate firing positions. And, naturally, counter-battery fire would follow. This led to the rise of vehicle mounted mortars.
-
Two big questions, and a host of little ones:
How has the artillery model been updated for the new engine? I assume we'll have the whole bag of tricks at our disposal munitions-wise (HEVT, ICM, HE delay, etc). How are adjustments handled? Is bracketing done automatically by the AI spotter and based on his skill/experience level? Will we be able to do things like immediate suppression, shift pre-planned targets during the course of battle/movement, or fire different sheafs?
Also, how will close air support function in the game? Will the game track time on station so that CAS availability will be fluid, ie you might start out a scenario with CAS on station but lose it for refueling, or get a surprise gift of 'splodey stuff just when you need it?
And the question we all want to know...can I depress my 155s and use them in direct fire support?
-
From what I understand, in recent years the Army has moved most of its logistical support to reserve units. I assume they wanted to keep the number of combat arms up during post Cold-War era downsizing, and so something had to go, and that's why reserve units are being called on so much nowadays. Now whenever the regular units deploy, the reserves have to go with them. So they aren't really "reserves" at all anymore.Originally posted by gunnersman:What is the point of the National Guard and the Reserves? I thought the NG was more "home guard" and the Reserves were kind of a stop gap. It seems they are both being used as stop gaps, and then some. Is the regular Army trying to get bigger? It seems dangerous to me to have to rely on anything but professional soldiers (no disrespect to the National Guard or Reserves).
-
What I can't believe is that you actually took the time to create an account to post this.
-
I want a refund.Originally posted by JonS:
Mine do. What's wrong with you?
-
You're not kidding. After witnessing and blowing up a whole bunch of stuff last week at Camp Pendelton, I can tell you that explosions in real life sound very little like the ones you see on tvOriginally posted by Madmatt:First off, the grenade effect in CMBO is actually the recording of a grenade explosion. Don't base your concepts of sound effects on Hollywood.
Madmatt
Artillery
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted