cassh

Steve- Please tell me I am reading the above wrongly and you still have specific trench type engineering defences that can be placed; and that this can be done at the start of a battle by either player who has "trenchline" units or locked in place by the designer? I would hate to think we had lost this basic military engineering ability that we've had since CMBB.

I hope this means engineer/sapper dismounts can undertake some basic combat engineer missions:- 1. Clearing minefields by hand 2. Clearing charges/booby-traps/IED from buildings/structures/roadblocks/choke-points 3. Demolishing point targets with explosive (buildings, bunkers, roadblocks, bridges, wire)

Scroll or slide - hmmm my mouse has a scroll wheel but not slider button - therefore I think from a UI point of view I'd prefer scrolling.

Quite so; 5.56mm NATO. Don't know why I had it in my head it is 7.62mm. It's definately a soldiers weapon though. oren_m - have you come across the Tavor yet? Just really wanted some inside knowledge of what it was like to use and shoot?

SA-80 is also accurate - but fails in robustness, CQB/MOUT handling, reliability and weight. Just wondered if the Tavor had overcome these shortcomings? The Galil was a/is great weapon as it is pretty much a 7.62mm Nato AKM/AK-47 but I think it was a tad heavy which given the number of female IDF soldiers was an issue for unrested standing, kneeling and sitting shoots - hence the lighter M-16 was adopted. IDF cite M-16 shortcomings as stoppages / reliability and weapon length in MOUT.

Anyone here used the Israeli TAR-21 assault rifle? Would love to hear your opinion of it.

Thanks for the info Steve. Quick questions:- 1. Can a mix of ammo be fired from an artillery asset - i.e. could a mix of illumination and HE be fired from one gun section/battery? 2. You mentioned targeting choices - if one selects a point target (bunker) to be neutralised does the battery automatically cease-fire when the spotter deems the target destroyed/combat-ineffective or does the player have to intervene to halt the arty fire? 3. Can C4I systems be damaged/destroyed like a tank losing a track or gun damage in CMx1 - so could an infantry squad's radio or an AFV's antennas be damaged or destroyed - temporarily or permanently breaking comms to support assets? 4. Will deconfliction be in operation when both CAS and arty are available?

Like the improvised cheek rest!

He fantastically entertaining - just quite worrying he's such a senior representative of PROC and is probably not alone in his views...

Tripod mounted gimpys (M240)...hmmm nice

Thanks Steve. That sounds very flexible and cool - I like the stealth-ambiguity option for irregulars masquerading as civvies - which I presume keeps a unit hidden to the last when their real world cover would be blown, but neatly keeps the civvies off the streets. Also think the building/structure related option is very cool - I hope this feature is applied to bridges and other infrastructure as well as standard buildings? Schools and Mosque will be the bane of every task force commander's life... Welcome to the Real World - (no Mr. Mister comments!)

Steve said - Steve, I know no civilians are going to be in CMSF, but in light of recent events and your statement above will US forces in the game often be restricted, or serverely restricted in the use of large firepower assets such as air-power, MLRS/155mm and have to operate under restrictive ROE or forefit VPs if they step over the mark? Likewise with casualties - will US Forces take a bigger VP hit for similar casualties figures to the Syrians i.e. if both sides had 10 KIA and 25 WIA and 5 MIA would the US player suffer more in VPs than the Syrian player in light of political realities?

mav1 - suppressing any element in CM is relatively easy if you used the appropriate units/weapons and the appropriate level of firepower. In the real world the figure 3-1 to 6-1 of fire-support elements to each target will fully suppress any unit and allow you to advance. It has work this way for a long time (See Rommel's book "Infantry Attacks" from WW1). This 3-1 to 6-1 ratio is well known amongst infantry commanders, and is key to modern MOUT/OIBUAs. Infantry hvy weapon make this task even easier - drop some light mortars and place a few area fires over any MG team and they'll take cover or be pinned.

Can you cite a case where a highly trained, motivated and well equipped army have been defeated by an average army of the same size with all other factors being equal? I think you'll be hard pressed to find one once other significant factors have been removed; i.e. US and USSR fighting conventional wars against revolutionary warfare/insurgency/asymmetric forces in Vietnam and Afghanistan where conventional strategies and tactics are inappropriate and fail to address and grasp the political nettle. Usually an army living on past reputation is given a kick in the arse when they meet an opponent who has moved on and is outthinking and out-training them. Rarely will you find a thinking army, well led and trained on the receiving end of an arse kicking. But if you can think of any let me know? Attrition is militarily the domain of the unimaginative and mentally flaccid. Defeating and enemy, not trading body blows, is what warfighting is about. Yes your army must be resilient and able to sustain casualties – but ones strategic, operational, and tactical objectives must never be "kill more of his guys than he kills of ours". That approach is grossly negligent and akin to cold blooded murder in my opinion. If you think the improvement in training, doctrine, organisation, skills and military craft that is characterised in the phrase mentioned above "commando-ization[sic]" is not a good thing then I worry. Better troops with greater skill sets help commander with greater flexibility, and the ability to achieve their mission more easily with a greater degree of variation – making them more difficult to predict or defeat. In a modern world under media scrutiny and political observation down to minor tactical engagements/outcomes you need highly professional soldiers who have surgical precision and the ability to operate to very tightly defined ROE. The utility of military force in this environment means commando-ized units are used more and more to fulfil key missions – this is no coincidence.

Because I know where our guys got their info from, and I know where Jane's can get some of their stuff from - and theirs tends to be more "sensitive" so to speak. Our senior journos were former Jane's staffers, so it's quite incestuous but Jane's have much more juice within the right circles.

Okay found it - tonights "analysis programme" on China's position in the world (BBC Radio 4) Ambassador Sha (actually chinese ambassodor to UN rather than UK) about 10 minutes in - bloody funny - also a very interesting progamme.

Did anyone hear the Chinese Ambassador to UK on the radio today commenting on the USA's view on the PLAN's expansion and increasing blue water capability - he went f'ing nuts - it was priceless - I've never heard a diplomat talk so undiplomatically - great stuff - I'll try and track down the sound file on the Beeb.

As a former employee of NRI who managed the publication www.army-technology.com for four years I can tell you the info there is only as good as the manufacturers supplied us, or our journalists could come up with from what ever their sources they had - i.e. it is not 100% accurate by any means. For more accurate data try Janes info group.

"That's alright corporal you drive my Humvee - i'll walk!!" said the Captain.

The M110 is going to be more accurate than the M24 - which goes to show BA rifles have no discernable advantage in accuracy terms which has always been their justification. In operation it means the weapon will be less likely to be disturbed from it naturally pointing at the target as can occur when trying to reload too quickly or without due consideration with a BA rifle - meaning it will remain more accurate for less experienced personnel. As it seems to be very similar to the AR-15 which was a favourite of PIRA gunmen and US SF - so it already has a good pedigree. I know how popular the HK MSG90 and PSG-1 have proven with some sniper teams as they provide great flexibility than BA rifles, and are just as accurate. Also bloody handy if you are compromised and need to put rounds down quickly. Now work that one out Steve - sniper snob who prefers semiautomatic weapons...

Warfighter stems from the rekindling of the "warrior" that began in US military literature and doctrine about 10 years ago (USMC began the whole thing IIRC) - it is designed to reinforce the idea that members of the armed force "fight" not push buttons or click mice. As steve said it a nice catch-all phrase for people in combat and fits in with the growing emphasis of joint services planning and operations - must say the DOD a fair bit of paperwork as well... Think the author may have meant "vantage point" and added an "a" ffrom ssomewhere?

UK lost more personnel to friendly fire from US Forces than enemy action in both Gulf wars. Hence it is quite a sensative subject. The MoD were meant to be looking into a ground base IFF system years ago - but said nothing was available and development cost too high to a parliamentary select committee - which was ironic as both Thales and Giat (French defence companies) had working systems available to buy at the time. Politicians really are the lowest form of life...

I thought they’d actually rediscovered a lot of the stuff they’d lost somewhere in the wash over the years – i.e. importance of direct fire HE weapons, various forms of special purpose explosives and charges, using vertical battlespace fully, cohesion and coordination on entry and movement, multiple supporting fire and overwatch etc etc. Nothing really that new – just re-learning all the old tricks again. the very point I was highlighting from your article citation above if you read the quote I selected. That was the very point I made in previous post once or twice as well. Most company commanders and battalion commanders understand OPs and overwatch, precision rifle fires and suppression of point defences/enemy strong points, interdiction of enemy communications and avenues of advance/movement. Where they usually fail is in the reconnaissance, intelligence and patrolling battle to control and dominate the battlespace and retain the initiative. The role to be played in a MOUT battle by recce and sniper assets is not simply pinging bad guys who come to take a crack at you. It is to get in his face and make him scared the whole time, undermine his ability to operate any recce or intelligence, and ensure your command cycle retains the initiative so your friendly forces are operating at a faster command tempo than the enemy. No, not at all. I’ve spent too many nights in a sanger overlooking some godforsaken ****hole to know that sharp shooting is a key posture one takes to control ground and restrict enemy activity. It’s just is not the whole story. Yes, but as I keep reiterating a two shooter team is by its nature less stealthy – therefore less realistic when the stealthy option is what the operators would choose in certain circumstances. Because you still don’t get how sniping works. It’s not an anti US Army sniper thing – as it is clear that they still operate a shooter and spotter in sniping and possibly two shooters in a sharp shooting capacity and the third guy is security – which in a MOUT environment makes sense if you need to cover the back door. However, even in the sharp shooting scenario you linked to above the spotter is describing how his shooter (singular) picked out 3 insurgents from a mob. Well it does seem to be a waste of their skills to be frank – and you underscore the very prejudice mentioned above that many officers still have regarding sniping – that somehow snipers think themselves above the line riflemen or some such bollocks. But from the the very article you cited we have this again:- Somehow this view I was in agreement with has been bastardised into something quite different your view from what I’m thinking. How is heavens name did you arrive at this conclusion:- That’s been my very point from the beginning of this mess. NO – not with two shooters - Jesus it’s a simple enough point you don’t seem to be getting. Nor does any sniper cadre or infantry training establishment. Semi-automatic fire actually - that is one of the key strengths of the M82A1, especially when suppressing heavy weapon positions at extreme range – rounds are landing as the last one is fired. That’s why no one in the British army ever reads the manuals – you listen to the guys who have just completed operational tours – and that’s been the way every year since 1945 save one. Well yes because we have absolutely no idea about asymmetric warfare and COIN operations in the British army – this whole insurgency thing is a complete mystery to us. Malaya, Borneo, Yemen, Aden, Oman, Kenya, Northern Ireland taught us nothing at all. IEDs, car-bombs, gunmen hiding in mobs – we’ve been dealing with that for fifty years. This is “old skool” not something new at all. I don’t know how much the US Army had to adjust from NATO-WARPACT philosophy to COIN, policing actions and supporting civilian authorities maintain the rule of law – but that was the British Army’s default setting for the past fifty years and the whole cold war thing was a weekend job. So please don’t be patronising in the finer points of asymetric warfare and counter-insurgency - it is very well understood.

Hmmm, now that does make more sense!

Modern advances in sensor technologies have brought us detection at ever increasing ranges. Unfortunately the corresponding identification technologies and capabilities have not kept up - so we can spot a potential "threat" way before we can fully identify it. As ff/blue-on-blue avoidance is becoming more and more of a serious consideration, programmes are in development to redress the current shortfall in military identification technology. The route of ever and ever trying to hone procedures and SOPs to prevent friendly fire, whilst worthy, fail to address the current dilemma, in that they fail to address either the cause, or a viable antidote. Only further technological developments can address this problem. So for the foreseeable future (lets say five years for arguments sake) the area of human judgement call has and will increase - with inevitable consequences. As these mistakes are often made in the heat of battle it is difficult if not impossible to eradicate them without a change in battlefield ID tech. Unfortunately modern fire power and weapons systems are more lethal than before and so the outcomes of these blue-on-blues can be grisly affairs. I think in MOUT, night, heavy smoke or obscuration if units are in close proximity to enemy units and C4I is patchy they have to stand a chance of receiving friendly fire every now and then. It can be a very low probability if necessary, but it will force commanders to control and grip their sub-units and teams to prevent this phenomenon.