slysniper

My son maried himself a darn Texan So all we hear about is all the great things about Texas ( We still are wondering why we do not see it when we are down there visiting.) I will say, I do like like your state tax down there. ( Oh wait, what state tax) Other than that, I have found nothing really making me want to move there and call it Home

BULLETPOINT You likely would not be saying that if the date was in the spring of 1942, Up to that point Germany was seemingly unstoppable and the world was in fear. That is where their reputation comes from. Yes they had made mistakes before that point. But til then things were going their way. From that point on I have to agree with you, but still most of their challenges was from within, they were their own worst enemy. ( But most of that leads to Hitler Himself) You cannot say that many a German General showed amazing skill even if their hands were tied with many stupid directives from above. They did. But in the long hall, no in all likelyhold their goals could never had been meet. No matter how good or bad they were as a fighting force. Hitler was too ambishes. (if the goals had been realistic, the world would surely have been a different place than as it is today,)

Since many battles in RT have the Russians packing a bunch of SMG's, it would not be hard to see the snipers getting a good percentage of the kills since they are the only units able to engage decently at range. where as if you are using other units, there is a little more competition getting some of the kills. So i think that might be all that is reflecting in the game that you might be seeing (place some Brit snipers and have the platoon carrying Brens and you likely could get similar results as long as you first engage the enemy at long range. Actually , have not tested it for awhile, but the settings in the game are pretty good now for what they are trying to protrey as sharp shooters, not snipers. As for the Real deal during WW2, Russia had a excellent Sniper program for another basic fact in that they had many Natural Snipers. (Meaning there was plenty of guys that had grown up with a rifle in their hand and had already many skills that just cannot be trained in a program and then become experts at it within 6 months) That is still a factor today. Many Snipers come from rural areas where they have hunted from a young age and learned how to kill game, but then the other interesting fact is that the next group of Snipers that make it are then generally guys that never had touched a rifle and have learned all their skills while in the service.

It all makes sense, this guy lives in Texas. They have no clue what a real bunch of woods looks like. He just likes to play on maps that remind him of home.

Two basic ways I like using mines. First as bobby trap locations. Or in other words. I place them in locations I anticipate hoping the enemy will cross. Thus causing losses and sometimes I might have covering fire that I will use once they hit the mine. When used this way, My minds are spaced out thin and all over the place trying to find good possible locations to get a kill or two. second as massive mine fields. basically using it to try and detour or get the enemy to use another route because the mine field is creating too much of a obstacles to try to bother with. In other words you are trying to channel the enemy movements to a location of your design. This requires a massive amount of mines and an few units to cover it so that the field cannot be breached.( I don't play QB's so I am not sure this approach could be used there since the cost and how they affect scoring might not work well for that type of game)

I likely have committed every type possible, when some real post are added pointing some out, I can second them. But I also find what some call gamey,not really gamey in my book or that of other players either. (So who is to say what is gamey or Not) Who is the game god that makes the verdict. For example, some say edge of map hugging is gamey ( I don't see it that way, It is part of the playing field, if you let someone beat you because of them using the edge, that is your fault, calling it gamey play does not remove the fact you did not cover it correctly.) Or here is another. He had a tank crewman in a objective zone and that was all he had to deny me points at the end of the game for that zone (again some would call that gamey, referring to the fact that would mean nothing in RL and that guy would never do such a thing) I see it as a game piece proving you did not take the objective and do proper mopping up procedures in time. There is always more than one view on things. Now don't take me wrong as that I do not think there is gamey actions that should not be done, no , there is some I would never do. (But who is the person that has the power to draw the line in the sand of right or wrong)

HEY, the artical says it clearly enough. It is not the the A-10 is worthless, for sure it still has value. But the fact is, if something has to be cut, what do you cut. Not the best weapon you have, but the least effective. And it appears that by what they are saying, it has been measured to be just that, if not now, for sure in the near future as to what continues to happen with weapons and tactics. Man, I have a A-10 model in my own office ( it is not like I do not like the plane myself) but I get tired of these threads that attack Bf for not having it in the game where it is easy to see why they made a decision that appears to be pretty locigal as to where things are going with our Military.

Well, here, lets see what some real knowledgeable people say instead of your dreamed up nonsense. Man, this took me less than two minutes to find and it does a good job of giving the plus and minus aspects of the A-10 And please note the multiple references to slower speeds. Plus I have sat at cas target sites and watched different planes make their runs ( and Buddy they are not firing their weapons at the same speeds. (not even close, I have no clue as to the actual speeds, but its like a VW to a Porsche) So before you keep fighting for the A-10 to be worthy of its place in the game. Start backing up some of them statements WASHINGTON: The A-10 Warthog is ugly, tough, lethal, and fairly flexible. Its famous 30mm gun can destroy tanks or other armored vehicles with remarkable efficiency, not to mention enemy troops. Its titanium tub of a cockpit protects the plane’s pilot from most ground fire. Its pilots are trained to fly low and slow and to kill the enemy even when he is within yards of US forces. The Army and Marines love the Warthog. In short, the A-10 appears to be the exemplar of Close Air Support, protecting Marines and Army troops when they face being overwhelmed by the enemy. Some members of Congress, with an eye on bases in their states and districts, love the plane as well and have championed legislation blocking the plane’s retirement. Why, then, people ask, is the Air Force seriously considering sending the Warthogs to the great boneyard and their pilots to other missions? The answer is complex, but it boils down to three things: money, smart bombs, and threats. First and foremost, retiring the entire A-10 fleet would save the Air Force $3.7 billion from 2015 to 2019. Retiring just some or even most of the A-10s wouldn’t reap nearly the same savings, because there are fixed costs in training and maintenance you can’t get rid off as long as you keep any planes. Second, thanks to the wonder of smart bombs, most of the A-10’s mission can be done by other, less specialized aircraft. That wasn’t technologically possible when the A-10 first entered service in 1975. But in Afghanistan and Iraq, precision-guided munitions from faster-flying fighters and even heavy bombers have actually provided the overwhelming majority — 80 percent — of close air support. Third, we’re not the only people with smart weapons. The Taliban and the Iraqi insurgents had at most a handful of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles — known in the trade as Man-portable Air Defense Systems, or MANPADS — but an unknown number of MANPADS were smuggled out of Libya after Qaddafi fell, and the missiles on the black market are getting more sophisticated all the time. That’s why the Air Force has planned for at least the last 15 years to replace the A-10s with the F-35A, its version of the JSF, which will reach initial operational capability (IOC) by the end of 2016. The F-35A will not only carry smart bombs but also have new, sophisticated sensors to guide them to ground targets — and it will fly much faster and higher than the A-10 can, making it a much harder target. While the JSF can’t carry the Warthog’s massive 30 mm gun, it does have a highly accurate 25 mm gun and 182 rounds of ammunition. (I asked Gen. Robin Rand, head of the Air Force’s Air Education and Training Command, last Friday if the F-35 carried enough ammunition to do the CAS mission. He said yes.) The B and C F-35 models can be fitted with a gun pod that carries 220 rounds but the pod disrupts the plane’s stealthy profile. The Air Force has a long history of appearing to want to abandon the Close Air Support mission and stick with fighters and bombers, though there is no sign of that from the current Air Force leaders or their immediate predecessors. This unfortunate history means many observers still distrust the Air Force rationales for shutting down the A-10 fleet. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh and his colleagues argue that in these days of declining budgets and the demands of enormous theaters such as the Pacific they must buy multi-role aircraft like the F-35 and the new Long Range Strike system. Single-mission aircraft, no matter how well suited they are to that mission, are just too expensive and limited. Those don’t seem unreasonable arguments, on their face. But the Air Force’s history of institutional indifference to the CAS mission combines with the broadly-held belief that no aircraft can do the CAS mission as well as the A-10 to spark opposition from ground pounders and Congress in particular. We spoke with the Army, the service with the most to lose should close air support diminish in effectiveness, and Air Force pilots who fly CAS missions to get both the official and off-the-record views. The official Army, in the form of Maj. Gen. Bill Hix, deputy director of the influential Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Army Capabilities Integration Center, was surprisingly understanding of the Air Force’s idea to shutter the fleet. But Hix also offered a nuanced critique of the current CAS capabilities, in particular the A-10’s ability to fly low and slow and deliver firepower in bad weather. “If the [A-10] aircraft and the specifically trained pilots go away, this mission will become a distant requirement hastily met with pilots who have been brought up on OCA [Offensive Counter-Air] and DCA (Defensive Counter-Air operations], and CAS that is provided will consist primarily of fast air-dropping JDAMs and other smart bombs on targets designated from the ground and then transitioning out of the area due to limited loiter time,” Hix said in an email. He listed some very specific conditions where the A-10 and its ordnance are awfully useful: When “flying cover over outposts where attack helicopters can’t get (high altitude areas [e.g.] above 10,000 feet in the mountainous areas of Eastern Afghanistan for instance) and other USAF aircraft cannot get down/under the weather or fly in tight spaces (F-16, et al) or are too limited in numbers (AC-130).” When “there is little to no air-to-air/IADs [integrated air defense system] threat and its use eases the demand for artillery and ground logistics requirements to support that artillery (cannon or rocket)[:] think of the support provided by Warthog pilots during the march to Baghdad in 2003); and the 30mm [gun], which is unique and intimidating to those on the receiving end, but not as precise as the gun on the AH-64 or the AC-130.” He also made the crucial point, unaddressed by most in the Air Force, that the A-10 also serves as flying artillery, which is very useful in some situations. “CAS,” he writes, “is a complement to artillery and other indirect and air to surface fire support.” Bottom line for the Army, per Hix: “That complementary mix of precision, area fires, sustained coverage, persistence, responsiveness and moral and physical effect remain important to success in ground combat; the A-10 carries a heavy complement of ordnance, while many other alternatives, like armed UAS, are more limited in their payloads; the A-10 is a good capability to have in the mix and even in limited numbers can continue to provide very useful and hard to replicate support on to ground troops.” Note that reference to “limited numbers.” That seems to indicate the Army would accept retirement of much of the fleet but really wants the Air Force to keep some A-10s. But the Air Force makes the simple point that its big savings of $3.7 billion come only when it retires the entire fleet and gets rid of fixed overhead costs. As any student of aircraft acquisition knows, buying the planes is pretty cheap. More than three-quarters of a airborne weapon system’s costs typically come from parts, operations and maintenance. The background view from a senior Army official was surprisingly accepting of the Air Force’s dilemma: “Tough times for all services and we have to leave it up to our counterparts to identify the best way forward to meet the CAS demands from the ground.” Requests for air support, of course, aren’t the only thing coming from the ground. There’s also anti-aircraft fire — everything from MANPADS to sophisticated air defense missiles. “I didn’t see the missile coming[;] my flight leader didn’t see the missile coming; my first indication of a missile launch was when it impacted my aircraft,” recalled Lt. Col. Kim Campbell, whose A-10 was hit over Baghdad in 2003. Fragments shredded much of the aircraft and cut its hydraulic control lines. But the plane’s famous titanium bathtub around the pilot kept Campbell alive, and amazingly, she managed to fly the wounded plane back to base. Campbell argues the latest model, the A-10C, has better sensors and self-defense systems. “The A-10 has improved significantly,” she told Breaking Defense. “We’re better able to operate in these threat environments.” But while the A-10 has been upgraded to handle some anti-aircraft threats, they still fly low and slow right into the enemy’s defenses. And in the air combat game, speed and advanced electronics are life. To get a multi-role fighter pilot’s perspective, I spoke with an Air Force F-15E pilot (now a B-2 pilot), Capt. Michal Polidor, who was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for a 2009 close air support mission in Afghanistan. The F-15E was not designed for CAS but neither was the B-1 bomber, which along with the F-18 and other multirole aircraft, have provided more than three quarters of close air support since the terror attacks of 2001. Laser-guided and GPS-guided bombs and rockets have made this possible, along with intensive CAS training for multi-role pilots and greatly improved coordination with ground forces through Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTACs). Polidor was called by a JTAC to support 80 troops in danger of being overrun by massed Taliban forces eager to destroy Outpost Keating, a badly positioned base in Afghanistan that the enemy threw an estimated 300 fighters at in hopes of destroying it. He strafed a switchback road and dropped a mix of four bombs. Polidor was part of a fleet of 19 aircraft, including Army helicopters, that helped the men on the ground kill half the enemy force. Since the Strike Eagle, as the F-15E is known, usually concentrates on OCA and DCA, Polidor said he received six months of CAS training before he deployed to Afghanistan, where he was based at Bagram Air Base. That training was crucial because, in addition to strafing and bombing, PoIlidor had to set his plane up as a communications relay between the JTAC and the other aircraft. His backseater became a JTAC for 19 aircraft. According to his citation for the DFC, Polidor (on his first day of combat), “took control of the 19 aircraft on scene and orchestrated air strikes from six F-15Es, four A-10s, two AH-64s and a B-1.” He would not offer an opinion as to whether the A-10 should be retired or not (he is a captain, after all) but he did note that other Air Force fighters simply have to fly much faster to be safe and maintain maneuverability than does the A-10. While that means the F-15 can get to the scene more quickly, it also means it must leave more quickly and cannot fly as low and slow as can the A-10. He said an A-10 could probably execute two strafing runs for each one he can do because of that slower speed and lower altitude. The circumstances of Polidor’s operation offer a window into just why the Air Force thinks it may be able to replace the A-10 even before the F-35A is available in late 2016. (The Marine Corps F-35B will be available earlier, in late 2015, and the Navy F-35C model by February 2019). His aircraft executed a complex strafing run of a twisting valley road and dropped two laser-guided bombs and two GPS-guided bombs and did not injure any US or allied solders. The aircraft he and his weapons officer directed killed 72 Taliban, almost half the enemy deaths, a fine demonstration of what Gen. Hix meant when he cited the value of Close Air Support as airborne artillery. The fact that Polidor was able to execute such an array of complex maneuvers on his first day of air combat is testament to the CAS training he received. So what does all this say about the A-10? Certainly, many of its effects can be duplicated by other, newer aircraft and usually are. Its psychological or morale effect on ground troops — fear for the enemy and jubilation for Americans and our allies — cannot readily be duplicated since the other aircraft do not fly low and slow. The A-10 is more vulnerable to sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses than the other multi-role aircraft (although recent upgrades have improved the odds) and Air Force officials believe it will be too vulnerable within 10 years. Richard Aboulafia, one of the deans of aerospace analysts at the Teal Group, aptly summed up the A-10s prospects: “It has faced dangerous moments before, it has faced retirement before, and it’s pulled through. You can make an argument for it either way, it’s not a dumb plane to have around by any means, it’s a very useful plane; the argument is in a time of austerity no service can afford single mission aircraft.” The Air Force can probably retire the entire A-10 fleet in several years, but neither Congress nor the Army will be completely comfortable with that. But the $3.7 billion the Air Force estimates it could save will be very tempting to harvest, especially once we have largely withdrawn from Afghanistan and the F-35s reach IOC. Our bet: retirement starting in fiscal 2016. That leaves time to educate and mollify Congress and to demonstrate to the Army its soldiers won’t be left without effective protection.

Yes, it happens and it would seem impossible at times, but that is part of it. Of course some of them guys were so high on drugs, that they did not know better that they were dying and bleeding out. Almost like shooting a deer, you know it is going to kill them but the question is how far can they get before they bleed out. That was one reason the M16 had such a bad rep. (No knock down power) I have heard of many cases how shot enemy soldiers would keep assaulting even after major hits. But again they normally were doped out of their minds anyway. But that fact still is, they were not going home to their shacks the next day. If you think it is all that safe, go spend a day out there and let me know how it goes with all these none lethal modern weapons out there. To convince my Sons that they really did not want to be a soldier like their dad, We play a simple game, Pick a soldier to represent you in any CM battle. Lets keep track of what happens to him and how things go. Even if you cheat and try to take extra good care of him (which we had some house rules to help prevent that) there was many a bad day.

I think you have a justified point, It would take a little testing to prove. But I am sure as I have tested other tank duels, there is times a few tanks just want to get out of there instead of fight. I just have thought of it as a random percentage that they threw in or something that might cause the action. But it sure would not be hard to find out if the game does it and about how often. For at least a certain duel.

The answer is no, just as Steve said Early on I ran test to see if Skylinning, or shadows had any affect on spotting and found that there was none and from the sounds of it, will never be in the game. Just something they did not want to try and add. Likely just way too hard to calculate and way too much data to produce for the amount it would affect the game as to play.

As for UAV's, just wait and see. they will get shot down all the time. And Helos have a much better tactical ability than fixed air in that they can fly close to the earth and use terrain as cover. As one post mentioned, Being seen is death on the modern Battlefield. And A-10 are like a tourist taking photos, they hang around in the same spot way too long. They are so slow, they just seem odd when you see them on the battlefield. There is no use for them, they need the skies cleared and ground anti air cleared to be of any use. So they are a cheap option and are useable as long as you are fighting a ill equipped enemy force. Not really what this game is trying to portray , is it.

There you go, there is the answer. I have done that myself also. You always have to watch the date settings in the game. So no issue, just need to set up the correct date

The RPG hanging in the air is a perfect way to end a turn. Nothing like a important shot being done and you having to wait hours or days to find out the result. That is one thing you can only get in h2h wego games.

Good find guys, It is pretty amazing this has not been reported before, or maybe it has.

Compared to other AT air assets, there is a logical reason for the A10 to be shelved. They really are not built for what is needed in a modern conflict. And if used I would say you are basically sending pilots to their death.. They are dead slow and must fly though or near the enemy lines to be able to fire. They just would not last long against a well equipped enemy. So maybe they have a place in your Heart, they do in mine. But really they are a weapon from the past, not one for many situations of the present

Oh, rub it in why don't you. You call it testing, I call it learning the skills to beat me in the new game As for posting, note that I have not done it much lately. Because most of the time it was from work when I had slow periods. Have not been doing that for awhile now.

I wonder, what amount of money might make it to the wife for allowing the movie. When he died, I thought about his wife and kid. (what their future would be like for them) It would be nice if from all this there was enough made so that the family is taken care of.

Believe it or not. I have not seen it. I did read the book when it came out and found it very interesting. Having been around many Snipers, I find that his mental outlook at life and what he was doing and how he justified what he was doing and for what purpose made him able to do what he did and be good at it. As for how much action he saw and what he did, it is somewhat amazing, I know of many guys who would have liked to be given a chance to do their job and never seen hardly anything. It is one of them factors after training for many years, there is just a desire to use the skills you have developed. even if you are not sure what using them skills will do to you. I just know I was shocked when I found out about his death when he was shot by one of the returned vets. he was helping that was having problems. It really was a sad way to go. He should have died when he was helping the infantry clear houses and he stepped in and showing them how to do it and was point for breaching the buildings. Just because he had his seals training, the luck of not hitting a ambush or some type of booby-trap explosion is amazing doing that type of work. But you have to give him credit to just go do it because he was tired of seeing other guys wounded or killed.

Stop your spying and go do a turn so I can hit you some more with them big guns. And Yes, it is that game

No, did not watch that one. But you are right in that maneuver seems to be even more important now than in the older period games. But I have also learned over the years of playing these games. Good maneuvering can be the winning factor. I use to just maneuver enough for create what I thought was fire power advantages. Now I move much more in my battles and I see many benefits for doing it. Like I am in a h2h match right now where I shifted my whole battle group to the right and then started pushing up the right flank, wanting to sell that I was committing everything there. Then when the defender shifted. I sent my cover fire units back to the left flank and proceeded to push up both sides. Just watching him shift, expose what units he has and then position my forces to try and prevent or at least shoot at units he now needs to shift back is worth the effort for all my maneuvering

True But Not everyone is riding around in a Abram Or wearing a Rabbit foot that actually works. I was in the infantry and then a Sniper. Neither of which provided protection other than the Shirt I was wearing (no body armor that did much in my day 80-87). So I see it from a grunts point of view. And on the modern battlefield it does not look pleasant if caught on the wrong side of an engagement. That is all I am saying.

Oh, I like it that you posted this. As I RECALL THIS might have been one of the first scenarios we played against each other. Ian, had positioned himself in this building, which really was a perfect location for stopping my advance. He had a great view for nailing any troops that tried entering buildings that faced a street which needed crossed and I was not able to get a good bead on his troops, thus making it a great strong point. That was until I decided to try this little trick and breach from the 3rd floor and hopefully get a jump on him. What it does not show is that I also poured troops into the few locations that he had been guarding against. So with that firepower also, it was helping to keep him pinned. Plus once his units routed. They were being gunned down in the street and ally he was fleeing to. It was a nice way to get to know each other.

Actually, this is what I think he is actually referring to. He thinks it is about the game engine. But what has changed is that the designers of scenarios are improving their skills on how to use the program , plus you have added tools that have helped them do better. What maybe he does not see is that you can make just as good of a designed scenario now in CMBN as within RT. It is just the fact that he just remembers all them early CMBN battles and no they are not as good as the CMRT stuff we see now. But there is newer CMBN stuff released or available that are on even ground. You just need to play it. I have been playing CMFI a lot lately because I figured I would not be playing it much once CMBS came out. There was many scenarios I had not played in the 2nd Mod thinking I would use them for H2H. Wow, why did I wait so long, some great battles in there. So it just comes down to what interest you, you can find it in any of the games. As mentioned, the tools to do a good job is in all of them. Finding battles that you really enjoy comes down to what you like. And Thank You BF for keeping the engine updated in all three of these releases. ( We all know it will come to a end at some point, don't we.)

Man, last night I was bored so I sat and watched one of ChrisND demos of the game he posted on YouTube. It was driving me crazy, I just cannot wait to get my hands on the game. So today I finally ordered it, knowing it will be out soon (I have always managed to preorder and get the game within two weeks, Pretty good timing in the past. Hope it works again.) Anyway, I have never been so excited for one of their games. Which seems funny to me since I have not even purchased their other modern stuff. Tried the demo's, somewhat liked them but just hated the match ups. Where as now I just cannot wait to get the units and start testing different tactics as to how to overcome some of the high tech stuff. It also just reminds me how glad I am I did not see action while I was serving in the service. Because now days if you are on the wrong end of a firefight, it is over before you even know what is happening. Being spotted by the enemy first normally means death or wounded with little chance of striking back. Just the facts of the modern battlefield and the game portrays it well.