cassh

nijis said- Well if you're talking about static then a platoon is too small - just three squads/sections to cover patrolling (foot and vehicular), base security and camp/base admin (cleaning weapons, sleeping etc etc). That means there is no backup - you're foot patrol gets a contact or man down whose going to bail them out? You need one squad to hold the base? Company base is the smallest static FOB that would be preacticable unless local forces present to bolster the ranks. Don't know whether to say "Stating the bleeding obvious" or "No **** Sherlock".

Steve - I know you mentioned bunkers potentially being able to be placed in buildings - but will there also be the ability to place anti-mobility elements such as wire, anti-personnel mines and even corrugated-iron on stairs in buildings?

nijis said You may have missed the entire point of mobile patrolling – the idea is you don’t have a static FOB, but rather harbour/laager each night in a different location with the wagons in an all-round defence. By moving about you present less of a target and are able to OP key routes and areas each night to build up an intel picture. The idea is to remain undetected - meaning that you’re not wasting resources defending a fixed location and can bug out if a heavy contact occurs. By moving about and laying low the enemy knows your area of operation and the threat - but cannot easily bring you to battle on their terms. In this way armed recce patrols can retain the initiative and operate in more favourable conditions. In this type of patrolling re-supply is also mobile by rendezvous with helicopters or trucks.

Bigduke6 - Quite a lot actually. To call the idea "big silly and expensive" just highlights you own naivety and lack of understanding of patrolling, intelligence gathering and counter-infiltration tactics. You need a mix of capabilities and solutions to allow for efficient counter-infiltration/smuggling – e.g. </font> Recce patrol teams</font>Ground based sensors</font>UAV and airborne sensors</font>UAV and airborne strike capability</font>Eavesdropping and electronic chatter surveillance</font>Local indigenous human intelligence</font>Agents on the ground (your Arabs in a pick-up)</font> The armed recce patrol is your most important asset in this mix as they actually control the ground in question. Existing recce land rovers with HMG/GPMG Milan/Javelin are not expensive, and are a pre-existing asset every battalion has. To buy in new pick-ups and train up a network of agents and their C4I systems would take time and not be wholly reliable from the get go. With pre-existing reconnaissance teams you have an instantly deployable asset. Arab speaking agents sending burst transmissions with air/land/UAV interdiction and strike capability responding on actionable timescales is not going to prove a reliable technique if this is the only methodology employed - as there is too much that can go wrong and it lacks flexibility:- How does a agent in a truck stop and search a smuggler/enemy patrol? Why get in a third party to interdict an enemy? Having just "agent patrol teams" increases the chance of contacts not being taken out or interceptions occurring. This is because a couple if "civvies" in a pick-up are not going to take out an enemy convoy, smugglers or Bedouin train on their own. Why not just allow roaming covert recce patrols to uses their organic weapons to intercept/take out targets they find? They have full night vision / fighting capabilities and anti-armour/anti-vehicular interdiction and are trained in this kind of work. They can stop and search any convoy/patrol they encounter, and their threat is in itself a great area denial tactic – making life more difficult for the enemy. As recce platoons are amongst the most experienced and best trained soldiers in any battalion they bring a very high degree of flexibility and options to the command team. Suggest you not be so glib about things you clearly don't understand!

flamingknives - Applied logic - I like that a lot. Of course! They're armoured for a reason - otherwise they'd just need to be a beefy tractor type thing. A compelling argument indeed!

Ah, the Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine Posse. You guys have no finesse – using field arty in direct support – shame on you all!! Actually at LarkHill (British Army School of Artillery) I've seen 105mm light-guns fire HEAT or HESH rounds (cannot remember exactly which one of the two it was, but think it was HEAT) in the AT role at targets. This is used rarely if ever by 7RHA airborne gunners – one presumes to protect the DZ / battery position from roaming enemy armour. But can’t say I’ve ever heard of field guns or SP supporting with direct fire since WWII other than an old 25lber at Mirbat Oman in 1972.

Get in line - Dan Quayle is first according to comedian Will Durst -

John - My very point - see last line above before Syrian teatime! 18700lb of H6 going pop is like an earthquake seismic event before you even factor in direct blast. 400 feet blast radius means you're saying good by to a good two or three blocks, and making another six or seven unfit or dangerous for human habitation. The effect of the MOAB vs. NW within the same footprint would be analogous to a wave hitting the sea wall, and a tsunami ripping it up. Although the MOAB is a grossly inefficient munition and lacks a battle worthy means of delivery – it will annihilate anything within its kill zone when it detonates. As a psychological weapon it would scare the **** out of me knowing it might be on its way in!

Would Aruba as a Dutch territory not be protected by the NATO treaty - and therefore Venezuela find itself in a state of conflict with all member states should it invade?

Maybe not in this iteration but we hope you’ll give it a shot for the WWII CMx2 series of games.

The mine dog is not in great taste - I saw a Russian general explaining the tactic on some TV programme years ago. He said in a cold matter of fact and monosyllabic way the following terse statement:- "Dog run out to tank. No tank, no dog."

Animal Magic Mine Dogs Artillery & Infantry Gun Horse Teams & Limbers Pack Mules & Mountain Guns Techie Ammo Resupply Casualty Evac Camo Levels - 1 day emplaced verse 10 days etc Monty's Moonlight Temporary Military Bridging (Pontoons/Bailey placed by designer - ribbon bridges deployable in game) Landing and assault craft Napalm Trip Flares Different coloured tracer WP grenades Differentiation between WP and chemical smoke rounds Glider Dodads for illustrating LZs Decoy Tanks/AFV/Trucks/AT Guns etc Mine Plows, Rollers and Flails Rhinos & Hedgecutters That'll do...

Sweet - lots of bangy stuff when house clearing.

Please no MOABs in CMSF otherwise the scenarios will be a little one-dimensional:- Herc flies in... Bomb away... Half the map disapears... US Player gets x VPs for detroying/killing all enemy units... US Player gets -x VPs for flattening three or four city blocks... Syrian player twiddles thumbs and has a cup of tea!

Assaulting a trench - if the grenade goes in, all is well - but if you mis-post it, or the enemy manages to lob it back, then with an offensive grenade you won't take out the assualt group with your own grenade fragments... Our L109 frag grenade has 2000 fragments and a 20m kill zone - so if you balls up it can be costly. In a bunker or confined room or space in a building where a dog-leg or some cover exists the overpressure is more effective that fragmentation at killing - meaning they are better killing weapons than frag grenades in fortified MOUT defences, zig-zigging comms trenches, compartmentalised bunkers or weapons pits etc etc.

Flash bag is non-lethal unless an accident occurs and it is right next to you when it goes off. However, a Mk3A2 is like an ubber flash-bang and in confined spaces is a killing weapon; offensive or concussion grenades are especially useful for clearing bunkers, trenches and in MOUT engagements, whilst allowing your own guys to really "lean into" the attack. Think of them as lying somewhere between a flash-bang and a satchel-charge...hehe.

Err no I don't mean claymores or any positioned/command detonated weapon when referring to defensive grenades and offensive grenades, but rather thrown hand grenades. Defensive Grenade A defensive grenade is wrapped in a fragmentation coil and designed to cover a wide kill area with high velocity particles when the explosive filler detonates. This type of grenade is best thrown from cover. See:- M67 Fragmentation Grenade http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m67.htm Offensive Grenade An offensive grenade (often referred to as an overpressure or concussion grenade) has a thin case designed not to fragment and has a high proportion of explosive filling to create a blast effect. Ideal for confined areas where overpressure is harnessed fully. See:- Mk3A2 http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mk3a2.htm

Steve, sorry to keep asking my "worrier" (no mentioning sheep anyone) questions - but are smoke grenades not sine qua non for infantrymen, especially in a MOUT battle? I hope these are in for CMSF? Also in CMx2 game 2 will there be a difference between offensive and defensive grenades as they are quite different and it would be cool to model this?

IIRC the old Soviet Western Strategic Direction had three desant "divisions" of brigade strength that formed the spearhead of their deep operational forces; that along with the OMGs formed their strategic/operational mobile "extraordinary force" (as opposed to the "ordinary force" of the Fronts' Armies that provided holding and armoured/shock breakthrough forces. Whilst the first echelon forces such as 2nd GTA and 3rd SA batter the hell out NATO divisions in the North German Plain the idea was to "land" these airborne mechanised brigade forces deep in the rear of our defences. The "operational worth" of mechanised forces able to manoeuvre and fight a mobile battle/operation in NATO's rear area was viewed by many as a huge force multiplier. So to be able to deploy these forces very rapidly by surprise in deep penetrations/landings by air was seen as an even greater operational multiplier. Whether these desant units could actually have made a safe passage through an air corridor let alone sustain a mobile battle via air supply is dubious. However if an airborne mech brigade suddenly turns up in Antwerp it makes SHAPE sit up and take note. I personally think that the ability of these desant brigades to wreak havoc to our C4I, airfields, communications and logistics tail and prevent follow-on "Re-forger" type reinforcements and the collection/marry-up with POMCUS equipment would be wholly dependant on a WARPACT air supremacy that was always doubtful.

Steve - cool beans - I was being a worrier. I look forward to making 1m wide by 1499mm deep trenches!

Steve said - There is a big difference in cover and performance between a 1m military trench and an 8m depression. I merely want to clarify the proportions of the deformed terrain and that we can make something about 1m wide by 1.5m - 2m deep approximately? Although one can make an 8m wide trench, to protect troops from lateral fragmentation as in a normal scale trench it would have to be very deep. This would mean that none of the soldiers at the bottom of the trench could see over the side to fire their weapons - which kind of defeats one of the trenches key defensive features. At 8m wide, if this were the minimum scale these trenches could be, they'd be more akin to anti-tank ditches and restrict AFV unrealistically! Tell me this is me being a worrying old hen, but my impression from what was said was that 8m was the minimum deformable element - and 8m wide seems awfully large for a trench. Glukx Ouglouk said - Walk about any battlefield of the past 20 years and you'll see plenty of trenches - it is still the primary defence again artillery and mortar fire. dan/california The strength of CMx1 was that it addressed more aspects of infantry combat than any commercial simulation/game to that point. I just am nervous that we might loose an intrinsic element of infantry combat without trenches of trench like proportions that's all.

Steve - just to clarify though - the designer can place actual trench elements rather than 8m wide deformed terrain?

I thought the TAR was already deployed with a brigade or two?

1973 - Conceded - not massed ATGM, but massed infantry anti-tank weapons. I do. BMP - Yes but USSR did not alter doctrine as a result of 1973 (BMP for them came as a result of operational art and OMG requirements) - but NATO did change from APC to beefier IFV that could fight in same echelon along side MBTs and deploy dismounts as required. Re Cuban missile crisis – luckily Kennedy made the right strategic and moral choice – but that is not a good example of pre-emption as the threat had already manifested itself with Soviet missile minutes from Miami.

Steve - You know in the sniper post you talked about how armour doctrine had changed in light of experience in Iraq - well I'd say in light of Lebanon they were back to square one and that a stand off approach in MOUT was still required. In southern Lebanon Hezbollah were using wire/laser guided weapons - imagine a fight against an enemy with fire-and-forget technology. It means the MOUT doctrine of the 1980/90's of dismounts going forward supported from depth for is back in vogue in my book. It's amazing how often the wars of the Arab Israeli conflict have given focus to military doctrine and make us think a little about future warfare:- 1967 Devastating effect of air supremacy and airpower (genesis of AirLand Battle) 1973 massed ATGM threat to unsupported armour (birth of the IFV rather than APC) 1981 Pre-emptive strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor (Establishes the precedent of legitimate military pre-emption as an instrument of foreign policy) 1982 Lebanon, 1987 Intifada, 1993 Lebanon - Asymmetric warfare to foil conventional armies (beginning of "commando-isation" of western armies to counter this) 2006 Massed ATGM threat to unsupported armour & Asymmetric warfare to foil conventional armies...