J Ruddy

OK <Font size = 8 color = Red>THAT DOES IT!@!!1</font> :mad: From one filthy stinking <Font size =4 color = Red>Canc</Font><Font size =4 color = white>ukop</Font><Font size =4 color = Red>ian</Font> to another... bring on yer warthogs, cowboy, my Strelets is gonna make Kibbe Kros outa yer ass! :mad:

(a) To fire a TOW from inside a room, the following safety precautions must be taken (Figure 7-10). The building must be of sturdy construction. The ceiling should be at least 7 feet high. The floor size of the room should be at least 15 by 15 feet; larger, if possible. At least 20 square feet of room ventilation should exist, preferably to the rear of the weapon. An open 7- by 3-foot door is sufficient. Removing sections of interior partitions can create additional ventilation. All glass must be removed from the windows, and all small loose objects removed from the room, the room should be cleaned. All personnel in the room should be forward of the rear of the TOW. All personnel in the room should wear ballistic eye protection and earplugs. A clearance of 9 inches (23 centimeters) must be between the launch tube and aperture from which it is fired. (See AR 385-62 and AR 385-63 for more detailed safety information.) Figure 7-10. TOW fired from inside a room. ( To fire a Dragon from inside a room, the following safety precautions must be taken. The building must be of sturdy construction. The ceiling should be at least 7 feet high. The floor size should be at last 15 by 15 feet; larger, if possible. At least 20 square feet of ventilation should exist (room openings), preferably to the rear of the weapon. An open 7- by 3-foot door would provide minimum ventilation. All glass should be removed from windows, and small loose objects removed from the room. The room should be clean or the floors must be wet to prevent dust and dirt (kicked up by the backblast) from obscuring the vision of other soldiers in the room. All personnel in the room must be forward of the rear of the weapon. All personnel in the room must wear ballistic eye protection and earplugs. At least a 6-inch clearance must exist between the launch tube and aperture from which it is fired.

Ya - but things like having to remove the glass, severe wall & structural damage etc... leads me to suspect that it isn't something you *want* to do without due preperation and thought. The LAW is more of a grenade launcher than a ATGM or recoiless rifle and is the only one that doesn't seem to bring the roof down in small frame buildings.

I recall an interesting comment on the number of Russian T-72 gunners who were missing their [left?] arm. Apparently the T-72 autoloader has a nasty habit of occasionally trying to stuff the gunner in the chamber.

From what my brother in law has told me (Major in the Canadian Artillery, too bad we mothballed our M109s...) I don't think they're used much for close support by the US. I would like to see a Syrian player be able to assault an Artillery Battery though. As I understand it, you don't want to try and take them in a frontal assault. As a last resort the munitions can be timed to air burst practically as soon as they leave the barrel leaving a lovely burning path of destruction...

Sorry, defenders are just going to have to make do with the trenches as they are placed by the scenario designer. On the fly placement of trenches is extremely involved because, unlike CMx1, they have to alter the map structure since they are truly 3D. They also have to alter the Action Spot map, which is set up at the time the map is made. It is possible these things can be worked around, but we aren't going to try to for 1.0. Too many things on the ToDo list. Steve </font>

Hi Glukx. Welcome to the dicussion. I disagree. I think that Afghanistan has shown how trenches/foxholes/tunnels/caves etc... are very important in modern warfare. It's free hard cover isn't it? (Well, sweat equity comes into play, but free compared to a bunker etc...)

____\_ |____/ I have no experience with any israeli weaponry, but I do have experience with 5.56 & 7.62 Nato as well as a number of hunting rounds. 5.56 is a joy to shoot and carry. I wouldn't trust it to drop anything larger than a Coyote with one shot. 7.62 packs a bit of a kick and is pretty damned heavy when you're hauling around 60-80 rounds. I wouldn't trust it to drop anything larger than a Cow Moose. I think you see where I'm going here... We went from overkill to underkill... Someone bright figured out that the ideal round for human sized targets would be something along the lines of a .243 remington. The problem is that it isn't a great round for military use because it is simply a necked down .308 Winchester that weighs too much and doesn't autofeed very well. But this 6.8x43mm Remington SPC cartridge looks great on paper. 115 grains of terminal ouchness and a trajectory that is similar to 7.62 NATO. So why the hell are we (NATO) still using 5.56? (with some exceptions of course...*cough* *SOCOM* *cough*) Even worse, all talks of replacing 5.56 as the NATO standard seem to have quieted down lately. Why did the US adopt a varment round in '63 anyways? (I wonder who pocketed that bribe?)

As a follow on, I recall a comment that stated that going from CMSF to a CMX2 WWII game would be easy because WWII would be simpler. Considering the massive amount of WWII towed AT guns, does this mean there will likely be no towing of guns in WWII?

What?! No trailers? What about all the BV206's in use in the desert?!!!! In all seriousness, does this mean no towed M777s either? {edit - forgot the toad ] [ August 21, 2006, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: J Ruddy ]

:mad: Calling all TNT chuckers! Don't let this thread slip off the front page! :mad: <font size = 1>Don't make me come in there and slap you! </font> :mad: <font size = 8>:CHIMPS!</font>

Maybe I don't fully understand what you just said, it wouldn't be the first time. But I have never heard of this correlation before. I would think that most dictatorships would not tolerate armed militant groups within their borders that could not be directly controled. I'm thinking of places like China, NK, Cuba, the ex-Soviet Union etc. where a totalitarian regime needs to keep it's population in check. Or maybe I'm confusing totalitariatisms with dictatorships... I can see how the tribal history of Syria and the Middle East in general would result in family/tribal based militias, but I don't believe this is a result of having a dictatorship. Meh - best to leave this sort of thing off the board I guess, it doesn't help the game out. Or does it? It could make for interesting Red on Red scenarios if some Syrians split and join the Yanks based on Tribal or Religious differences.

D'oh. Finns in the desert... At least they're going to wait until it cools off a litte...

Meh - I can't be nice to this guy without feeling a little dirty... Mortars predate trench warfare by something like 300 years and were invented for seige warfare (attacking a Castle or other walled fortification). The trench mortar wasn't invented until ~1915. The advantage is that if (and it is a big if) you can land a mortar round directly in a trench, you will wreak havoc, but you have to land it in the trench first. The British 2 inch mortar was hand aimed and did not have a timed fuse. Because they can't air burst and are hardly designed for precision delivery, I would think they would be fairly useless against trenches. When I play Brits I normally use these for smoke. I think the German 50mm was percussion fused as well and while it did have a solid mount, it did not have a sophisticated aiming device. Again, not my first choice for bombarding a trench. IMO, from a technical standpoint, the German 120mm Mortar was a thing of beauty. With Percussion or Timed fuses, a great aiming device and a sturdy mount, when used against trenches it was very effective. In the CM games it is my tool of choice for softening up a trench or wooded area. The 81mm sGrW 34 was on par with the 120mm as far as accuracy and is my second choice for attacking trenches. Anyways, that's my take. Take it or leave it.

In Mav1's defence, I have had some Mortar issues in a couple of games of CMAK playing as Brits/Canucks. I don't know if it was because I was fighting Veteran Germans or if Commonwealth mortars < German mortars or simply a luck of the die roll kind of thing. Comments?

I fail to see how a slider will help you to find saved games...

If you want to see the ultimate in non-lethal weapon ignorance at work, google for Jon Eric Hexum.

Do you mean irregular combatants? IMO The idea is not too different from the various militias and minutemen in the US of A, except for the odd beer gut and flat bed Ford. I'm just an ignorant Canuckopian, isn't that where the right to bear arms comes from? The need to have an irregular force available to act when the government fails to do whatever it is that the people expect it to do? Or have I simply found a new septic pit to dig in?

:mad: <font size =1> shh.. don't ask dont tell!</font> :mad: CM:SF can stay in the bloody closet for all I care - where the <font color = Red>hell</font> are the <font size = 5>Dog Mines<font>?!1 *bleh* :mad:

*gasp*

I think the immediate advantage might go to the combat experienced troops. This would quickly wane as the better trained troops got over their opening night jitters though...

So, a fragmentation grenade is primarily designed to make people giggle? Or a landmine is designed to send a sense of joy up the leg of the person stepping on it? Funny how maiming and killing aren't considered worse than non-lethal alternatives. As Daffy Duck once said, Humans Is The Craziest Peoples Steve </font>

From the oneworld.net article: Holy crap, do you know just how much microwave energy & exposure it would require to explode a human? IMO here is a slightly 'better' (less nutbar) source for information on the uWave weapon... :S http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725095.600 [Edit - lol, use a garbage can lid to redirect the beam back at the vehicle...] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/v-mads.htm

I'm with ParaBellum. I've used Mortars against trenches religiously in CM.

What you are referring to is Tactical/Situational Awareness and supressing fire. Is suppressing fire in the game? I think it is needed if it isn't. Is tac/sit awareness tracked on the individual's basis?