Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

M1A1TC

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,631

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by M1A1TC

    a call for more variety in the WWII CMx2 game

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Zemke:

    ]....CMSF was never what I wanted...I KNOW in my heart that BF is trying to please as much of us as is cost effective...

    CMSF is what I wanted since CMBO days, but it wasn't executed like I wanted it to.

    If you really think a company, designed to sell product and make money, cares about pleasing you, thats just sad. Thats not how buisness model works. Its all about making money. Thats why they went with focus on RT. If they cared about pleasing us, they would have concentrated on WEGO, improving AI, not releasing the game in half-finished state, etc

    0

    BFC: CAS/Artillery options

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    BFC

    Can we please get in-game ETA for those assets? Like a count-down. It would make it easier to coordinate the ground battle. Right now it says "Preparing" I dont know what that means? Does it mean it's 3 minutes from splashing? 5 minutes till they get a firing solution? What?

    Also, I havent noticed any helicopter or plane sounds in-game. Can you please add those? Pretty please? I want to hear that Apache fly-over

    [ March 16, 2008, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: M1A1TankCommander ]

    0

    US Army FM 3-0, Feb 2008

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Just received the newest Field Manual since 2001. Its Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

    Here is a Foreword:

    Foreword

    America is at war, and we live in a world where global terrorism and extremist ideologies are

    realities. The Army has analytically looked at the future, and we believe our Nation will

    continue to be engaged in an era of “persistent conflict”—a period of protracted

    confrontation among states, nonstate, and individual actors increasingly willing to use

    violence to achieve their political and ideological ends.

    The operational environment in which this persistent conflict will be waged will be complex,

    multidimensional, and increasingly fought “among the people.” Previously, we sought to

    separate people from the battlefield so that we could engage and destroy enemies and seize

    terrain. While we recognize our enduring requirement to fight and win, we also recognize that

    people are frequently part of the terrain and their support is a principal determinant of success

    in future conflicts.

    This edition of FM 3-0, the first update since September 11, 2001, is a revolutionary

    departure from past doctrine. It describes an operational concept where commanders employ

    offensive, defensive, and stability or civil support operations simultaneously as part of

    an interdependent joint force to seize, retain, and exploit the initiative, accepting

    prudent risk to create opportunities to achieve decisive results. Just as the 1976 edition of

    FM 100-5 began to take the Army from the rice paddies of Vietnam to the battlefield of

    Western Europe, this edition will take us into the 21st century urban battlefields among the

    people without losing our capabilities to dominate the higher conventional end of the

    spectrum of conflict.

    Ours is a doctrinally-based Army. FM 3-0 provides the intellectual underpinnings that lie at

    the core of how our Army will organize, train, equip, and conduct operations in this new

    environment. It recognizes that we will achieve victory in this changed environment of

    persistent conflict only by conducting military operations in concert with diplomatic,

    informational, and economic efforts. Battlefield success is no longer enough; final victory

    requires concurrent stability operations to lay the foundation for lasting peace.

    Although the strategic environment and operational concepts have changed, Soldiers remain

    the centerpiece and foundation of the Army—as they have been since 1775. These

    Soldiers are led by leaders proficient in their core competencies, sufficiently broad to adapt to

    conditions across the spectrum of conflict, and courageous enough to see enemy

    vulnerabilities and exploit opportunities in the challenges and complexities of our operating

    environments. As leaders, it is our obligation to understand and be proficient at employing

    Soldiers in full spectrum operations. We must read, study, understand, and implement the

    doctrine in FM 3-0.

    WILLIAM S. WALLACE

    General, U.S. Army

    Commander

    U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command

    0

    Vietnam Module?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I am sorry if I got the Vietnam history wrong, when I was growing up the Soviet-Afghan was was in the news, so when my country packed up and left Afghanistan (lost), I always thought similar thing happen to Americans in Vietnam.

    I guess I need to read more history instead of listening to liberal democrats

    BTW, Vietnam was not a declared war(as far as I know) but an armed conflict? So you might be right, US didnt lose a war, just a conflict

    Victory is not about staying or leaving Iraq, but about accomplishing the mission. Can the mission (war on terror) be accomplished in Iraq?

    0

    Vietnam Module?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by handihoc:

    TC, when you set up your new home (presumably) with your new wife, can I interest you in a finely crafted, authentic, luxurious English kennel for the family pet?

    Unfortunatly my fiance is allergic to pet dander :( Id love to have a dog. Atleast we have a female dog here on forums - Dorosh

    [ February 27, 2008, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: M1A1TankCommander ]

    0

    Lack of MRAPSs costs Marine lives

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Writer

    Tue Feb 26, 6:22 AM ET

    WASHINGTON - The Marine Corps has asked the Pentagon's inspector general to examine allegations that a nearly two-year delay in the fielding of blast-resistant vehicles led to hundreds of combat casualties in Iraq.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    The system for rapidly shipping needed gear to troops on the front lines has been examined by auditors before and continues to improve, Col. David Lapan, a Marine Corps spokesman, said Monday night. Due to the seriousness of the allegations, however, "the Marine Corps has taken the additional step" of requesting the IG investigation, Lapan said in an e-mailed statement.

    In a Jan. 22 internal report, Franz Gayl, a civilian Marine Corps official, accused the service of "gross mismanagement" that delayed deliveries of the mine-resistant, ambush-protected trucks.

    Gayl's study, which reflected his own views, said cost was a driving factor in the decision to turn down a February 2005 "urgent" request from battlefield commanders for the so-called MRAPs.

    Stateside authorities saw the hulking vehicles, which weigh up to 40 tons and can cost as much as a $1 million each, as a financial threat to programs aimed at developing lighter vehicles that were years from being fielded, charged Gayl, who prepared the study for the Marine Corps' plans, policies and operations department.

    Gayl, a retired Marine officer, is the science and technology adviser to Lt. Gen. Richard Natonski, who heads the department.

    The Associated Press first reported on Gayl's study Feb. 15. At that time, Gayl's work had not been reviewed by his immediate supervisor, Col. David Wilkinson, Lapan said Monday.

    "The paper represents Gayl's personal opinions and is clearly marked as such," Lapan said. "It is both preliminary and pre-decisional, and therefore a mischaracterization to term his work an official study or report."

    Gen. Robert Magnus, the Marine Corps' assistant commandant, disputed Gayl's conclusions in a recent interview with Marine Corps Times.

    Magnus and other Marine Corps officials have said the defense industry lacked the capacity to build MRAPs in large numbers when the 2005 request was made. The best solution to the deadly roadside bombs planted by insurgents was to add extra layers of steel to the less sturdy Humvee, they said.

    "I don't think (the study) stands up to the facts about what we did, about what the industry was capable of doing and why we did what we did," Magnus told the newspaper in an interview. "I just don't think that's accurate."

    Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared the MRAP the Pentagon's No. 1 acquisition priority in May 2007. Defense contractors are now producing close to 1,000 vehicles a month.

    Gayl has clashed with his superiors in the past and filed for whistle-blower protection last year. In his study, he recommended an inquiry be conducted to determine if any military or government employees are culpable for failing to rush critical gear to the troops.

    "If the mass procurement and fielding of MRAPs had begun in 2005 in response to the known and acknowledged threats at that time, as the (Marine Corps) is doing today, hundreds of deaths and injuries could have been prevented," Gayl said. "While the possibility of individual corruption remains undetermined, the existence of corrupted MRAP processes is likely, and worthy of (inspector general) investigation."

    Sens. Joe Biden, D-Del., and Kit Bond, R-Mo., called for an investigation after reviewing Gayl's report.

    The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the nation's oldest veterans organization, said if Gayl's allegations are true, charges should be brought against the military and civilian officials who failed to deliver the MRAPs.

    If, however, Gayl's findings are incorrect, he should be held accountable for his actions, said VFW National Commander George Lisicki in a Feb. 19 letter to members of Congress.

    "There is no doubt MRAPs have saved many lives in horrendous (improvised explosive device) explosions, but to accuse the Marine Corps of knowingly and intentionally jeopardizing the safety of fellow Marines on the battlefield is a very serious charge," Lisicki said.

    0

    Vietnam Module?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

    I always love to play any wargame that has soldiers speaking my native language-Russian.

    I grew up behind the Iron Curtain watching old black and white movies about the Great Patriotic War, and how we beat the Nazis. Thats why my favorite game will always be CMBB

    Not to put too fine a point on this, but having seen all the photos of you and the self-referential comments of the last few days, I have to ask - you really are aware this isn't a homosexual dating site, right? </font>
    0

    Vietnam Module?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I always love to play any wargame that has soldiers speaking my native language-Russian.

    I grew up behind the Iron Curtain watching old black and white movies about the Great Patriotic War, and how we beat the Nazis. Thats why my favorite game will always be CMBB

    My family is from Volgograd, that used to be called Stalingrad. Ive been to Mamaev Kurgan many times, walked along the Volga, been to the Pavlov's house museum, talked to my grandmother who worked there as a nurse.

    Vietnam War module? Who would feel nostalgic about that conflict that America lost?

    0
×
×
  • Create New...