Nemesis Lead

How far away is the HT? How many MGs are firing? If you hit them from 250 to 400 meters with 2 MG42 HMGs (not MG42 LMGs) you will have better than a 50% chance of killing the HT per turn. Even better, beyond 250 meters you appear to be a sound contact to him and you will not have to worry about counterfire (unless he triangulates and area fires at you, but the risk is worth taking). Waiting until the HT is 30 to 70 meters increases your chances for a kill, but you will be spotted for sure and shot at! Better to open fire now if you do not fear counterfire (i.e., the enemy is more than 250 meters away from you). I have killed US HTs at 800 meters. They have 7mm of armor and an open top. HMGs will get em!

Thanks John. Do you know if the plastic explosive used in HE-P is more powerful per unit of weight than regular HE?

Thanks, SO. That sounds like High Explosive Squash Head (HESH). Are HESH and HE-P the same thing?

Guys, In terms of the 105mm rounds fired by the gun variant of the Stryker....I am assuming that the difference between High Explosive rounds and High Explosive Plastic rounds is that the explosive in the latter is plastic explosive. A few questions: 1) Is this correct? 2) Are there advantages or disadvantages in using HE-P vs HE? 3) Assuming that HE-P is more powerful than standard HE...why aren't all HE rounds HE-P rounds? Many thanks, Jay

Sergei, Don't tell me what I have to learn and not learn. You post those damn Cheery Waffle Threads that have nothing to do with reality, much less CM. You have no room to talk.

This is a legitmate question that is debated in the press every single day. I want to hear what the guys who were over there think. There is no "fishing for trouble" here. Too bad civilians won't be modelled in CMSF. It would have been cool for both the US and Syrians to mistake civilians for the enemy and then lose points if they accidently hit them. The level of intelligence and Fog of War could also be modified by civilian support or lack thereof.

To all the guys who have gotten back from Iraq....How are things going over there? My personal opinion is that we will not truly win until we win the hearts and minds of the average Iraqi. When Iraqis immediately report the presence of insurgents and generally do not aid them, we will have won. My take is that it depends on what part of Iraq you are in. Around Fallujah we are probably hated and in Kurdish areas we are loved. But what about the rest of the country? Where is the overall "center of gravity?" How are our "hearts and minds" efforts going? What does the average Iraqi think of the Americans? What do the Americans think of the Iraqis? Ah--this related to CMSF in that I wonder how civilians should be modelled.

Guys, This whole debate is really silly. Both the Army and Marine Corps are the best trained forces that the US has ever fielded. Both have illustrious histories. Both are more similar than they are different. But the differences are real and they explain many things. The Army has a much stronger logistical component than the Marine Corps and its heavy units pack more firepower and technology. From every thing that I have read, the Marines needed the logistical pause in Gulf War 2 more than the Army did. In Gulf War I, the Marines were also less capable of cutting off the retreat of the Republican Guard than the Army. The Army did not fail in its mission and the Marines could not have done a better job than the Army BECAUSE THEY ARE ORGANIZED DIFFERENTLY. In another example....the most effective US unit in the Vietnam War was the 1st Air Calvary Division. The Air Cav killed for more NVA than any other unit (this is a fact), often pacified areas that other Army and Marine units could not pacify, and was the unit feared by the NVA more than any other unit. Why? Because the Air Cav was organized around the helicopter and air mobility was very effective in combatting a jungle insurgency. The Air Cav simply had 10 times the number of helicopters of any other division--Army or Marines. Its mobility left the enemy with fewer sanctuaries and those sanctuaries had to be pushed further away from cities when the Air Cav was in town. The two examples above do not discredit the bravery of the Marines. They simply are designed to fight with shorter supply lines with conventional combined arms units while the Army is designed for sustained land combat and has some "non-conventional" units in its inventory. Some of the Marines are ignoring this reality and just making things up. To the credit of the USMC, it has its own Close Air Support and has honed this to a fine art. The Army relies on the Air Force and the Air Force sees CAS has a "third priority." The Marines also have better basic training than the Army and toughen their training every time the Army toughens its training (to maintain their edge). The Marines also train all of their soldiers to an infantry standard which pays dividends in wars with no real front lines. I would not call rear etchelon Army troops warriors by any stretch. The Marines are also a very smart bunch and the charges of the Army being too heavy handed in Iraq are very true. The 82nd Airborne in particular saw every problem as a nail and brought in a hammer to take care of it. The Marines also have a better esprit de corps than the Army does generally. Finally, in a big war the Marines do not rely on conscripts (some exceptions were made in Vietnam). As a result, all volunteer Marine units accomplished more in WW2 Pacific fighting than their Army brethern whose ranks included many conscripts (although it is amazing what the Army did accomplish with its conscripts). The better analogy to make would be the Marines vs. the Airborne. But if a Marine battalion fought an Airborne battalion, the Marines would likely win because they Airborne would lack the firepower to hang with the Marines--BECAUSE THEY ARE ORGANIZED DIFFERENTLY. In the same vein, a Marine Division would be destroyed if it fought an Army Armored Division in the desert BECAUSE IT IS NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT. The bottom line--the Army and the Marine Corps are different. There are things the Marines do better than the Army and there are things the Army does better than the Marines. Both are staffed by highly motivated warriors who are simply outstanding at what they do. [ February 12, 2006, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Nemesis Lead ]

Flamingknives, So true--a great example is green US Army units in WW2. They were often very aggressive in their first battles and got decimated (e.g., tank commanders in North Africa). Veterans were actually more likely to how more caution. Having said that skill comes into play, so the vets would be more effective with shorter command delays, more effective firepower, better use of cover and concealment. Green troops would bunch up more and take correspondingly higher losses, they had worse noise and light discipline, they had poor fire discipline (would be cool if green troops ignored their cover arcs some times), etc..

Battlefront, I am looking very much forward to this game. One suggestion that I wish was incorporated into the CMX1 series..... Unit morale and skill should be seperated. In CMX1 units are rated as conscript, green, regular, veteran, crack, or elite. Their morale and skill are tied together and represented by their experience level (exceptions are made for fanatic units I know). It would be cool to break these apart. When fighting Jihadists, you might find that they lack combat experience/skill, but are very brave (i.e., conscript or green in skill, veteran or crack in morale). Conversely, Syrian army units might show some skill, but might the lack courage required to take on M1A2 tanks (i.e., green or regular in skill, conscript in morale). Thoughts? [ February 08, 2006, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Nemesis Lead ]

Let's look at this from the Arab/Palestinian point of view. This is what I perceive they think. Note--this is not what I think, but there is truth in much of what is said: 1) It starts with the Crusades nearly 1000 years ago. The Europeans are bothering us because God told the Pope to retake Palestine. Thousands die. Thank you Europe! 2) It continues with European colonialism. Now they actually took over our lands and are stealing our natural resources, creating products with them, and selling the products back to us. Oh--and we lost our right to self rule. Their missionaries are also bugging us to convert to Christianity--this strikes us as arrogant. Thanks again, Europe. 3) Move ahead to World Wars 1 and 2. Now the Western Powers are actually fighting battles (with each other) in our countries and creating colonial armies with our men. Are we a party to all of this? Why do our men have to die over these stupid disputes? Oh and after the war, many of our nations will have to fight bloody wars against European powers for our independence. 4) World War 2 and its aftermath. One western nation (Germany) perpetuates a horrid crime against the Jews. Instead of carving out a huge piece of Germany for a Jewish homeland (appropriate for Germany's many crimes), the world essentially hands Palestine over to the Israelis whose only claim is some Biblical nonsense that they have a "right to return" here (there are only a few thousand Jews in Palestine when this whole thing kicks off). Thousands of poor and powerless Palestians are displaced and the Germans got off scot free for killing 6 million people (the US needed the Germans as an ally for the coming Cold War)! Oh--and the US bankrolled the Israelis. Thanks for that, America. 5) Cold War. The US and Soviet Union prop up numerous brutal and corrupt dictatorships in the region. These dictatorships kill thousands (millions?) of people while the superpowers look the other way in return for cheap oil (the US) and ideological sympathy (the USSR). In Iran, the SAVAK (secret police) is an especially ruthless killer (later an Islamic revolution will topple the Shah and the SAVAK). Oh yeah--Saddam Hussein was once a friend of the US. He and Rumsfeld and Cheney had lots of laughs together. The average man in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq has little to thank the US and USSR for. 6) The Soviet Union attacks Afganistan to suppress a likely Islamic insurrection and create another "puppet buffer state." This is perceived to be an attack on Islam since the Soviets actually state that their aim is to prevent an Islamic goverment. About 3 million Afgans die before the Soviets are ejected. 7) Cultural Imperialism. US foreign policy is perceived as--"if you are not a capitalist democracy with an open society, you are wrong. You should be providing markets for our products and should pattern your culture after ours." Arabs and Muslims are fairly conservative. They don't really want Howard Stern beamed into their living room. They think Paris Hilton is an idiot. They think we are too materialistic and have high divorce rates and a variety of social problems. They see our attitude as arrogant and believe they have a superior, family oriented culture with Islam. But rather than agreeing to disagree, the West aggressively exports its culture and continually tells Islamic countries that they are wrong on a variety of issues (e.g., women's rights). The arrogance! Throwing stones at us when they themselves are chaulk full of problems! 8) Modern day Palestine. The Israelis treat the Palestians like garbage. In the US, there is talk about how Segregation was hard on African Americans who were treated like second class citizens. Well, the Palestinians are treated like third class citizens. Jim Crow was easy compared to checkpoints, bulldozers, and land appropriation! 9) Nuclear double standards. Western nations can have nukes. Middle Easten nations cannot. Er--we will make an exception for Israel. 10) The average man in the Middle East can often see the Western news coverage. The Western news media mentions little of what is above. Instead, the people in the Middle East are portrayed by the Western News Media as crazy and "a threat to the West." But from the Middle Eastern perspective, they are the ones who have been victimized for nearly 1000 years. 9/11 was seen as an isolated incident in that the Middle East did some damage to the West. But the truth is that the West has been taking it to the Middle East for centuries. In their eyes, we don't seem like the good guys do we? Perhaps they are not as irrational and evil as our new media would lead us to believe? Perhaps our own motives are not so good and pure? All of this explains the video game and the silly language (our video games are just as silly). But the sad thing is--this also explains suicide bombers and the election of Hamas. The bottom line is that Islamic fundamentalists will ALWAYS appear (to the man on the street) to be the better choice than those (like Arafat and Fatah) who want to do business with the West--a West that has never really appeared to have the interests of the people of the Middle East at heart. As is always the case, there are two sides to every story . NEVER simply believe your leaders when they tell you that the man on the other side of the world is evil. Do your own research looking at all sides of the issue and come to your own conclusions. It may turn out that the guy is, in fact, evil. But more often than not, the dispute boils down to petty, self-serving crap and there are idiots on both sides. [ February 04, 2006, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Nemesis Lead ]

The question WAS answered. The men are carrying all the ammo that they can regardless of MG. If one MG has a higher rate of fire, it will run out of ammo more quickly. Hence, the lower ammo rating. The 42 has a higher firepower rating than the 34, which partially offsets this. I have also noticed (perhaps not scientifically) that the 34 is easier to spot than the 42.

I am currently having issues with Hotmail in PBEM..... Maybe Battlefront will have a recommendation. When you receive a PBEM file, Hotmail will place the text from the file in the body of your email instead of giving it to you as an attachment. You then have to cut and paste the text into Word Pad and save it as a txt file. The problem is that spaces appear at the end of each line of text and this corrupts the file. You can use Hotmail if you opponent zips his files before sending them to you. Hotmail will give you zip files as attachments. One solution that has worked for me--I just opened a Yahoo mail account. Having said that, I prefer fewer email accounts to many. Any suggestions Battlefront?

Anyone have any recommendations on good sources?

Thanks fythinghellfish. Great post. I have heard the Russians are using a variant of the second vehicle you posted as a dedicated urban combat vehicle (can fire at "tall" and "short" targets). However, it is being criticized for having two rapid fire autocannon instead of a low velocity gun of 100mm+. The Russians are suddenly interested in urban combat vehicles because they got eaten alive in Grozny (losing 105 of 120 vehicles in one engagement IIRC. This plus the fact that conflicts are increasingly urbanized (as the world is increasingly urbanized) and the US demonstrated that "non-purpose built" AFVs can do very well in urban environments is fueling the calls for decicated urban AFVs. I know they are on the drawing board, I just want to see them.

Guys, I think that many of us have heard about the proposed "urban combat" kit for the M1 tank. For those who do not know, the tank would have (among other things): 1) An "RPG cage" somewhat like the Stryker but with emphasis on the sides and rear instead of the front (which is already very well protected). 2) Gunshields on all externally mounted machine guns. 3) A couple of other minor modifications that I can't recall now. The has also been talk of developing new ammunition for the 120mm gun that would be better in urban combat--HE (although other nations already have 120mm HE rounds), "beehive", smoke, hyperbaric and HESH shells. In spite of this, the M1 series of tanks is not purpose-built for urban combat. Issues with the M1 in urban combat include: 1) The gun (designed for high velocity, tank on tank battle) is far too powerful to be fired in proximity of friendly infantry. Friendly infantry can be seriously injured or killed (a low velocity gun is preferrable for urban combat). 2) The M1 is designed for mechanized warfare and has much of its armor up front. It is not designed for "all round" defense (although the M1 is pretty doggone good at this). 3) The tank is too heavy and destroys streets/bridges. 4) The tank is (relatively) loud and enemies can hear it coming from great distances. (Strykers are supposed to be good at "sneaking up" on the bad guys). 5) There is not an "infantry intercom" on the back of the tank to allow infantry to conveniently communicate with the tank crew. 6) The gun cannot aim high enough (e.g., at tall buildings) or low enough (e.g., threats firing from basement windows at close range) to be ideal for urban combat. In light of all of this, I have heard that several nations (e.g., US, Russia, Israel, and China) are looking into building purpose-built "urban combat vehicles." Does anyone know of any of these vehicles?

Guys, I notice that the Stryker has a Remote Weapons Station (RWS) that can carry a .50 caliber HMG, 40mm grenade launcher, TOW, etc.. On the surface, a RWS makes sense--you don't have to expose the gunner. But does anyone know how effective these are IRL? Potential problems I see: 1) Jamming and then inability to clear the jam without exposing the gunner (or do you clear the weapons from inside?). 2) Reloading--do you have to exit the vehicle to reload? How much ammo does the RWS carry "at the ready?" 3) Vulnerability--the RWS does not seem well armored. Do weapons get put out of commission often? 4) Visibility--the downside of not exposing the gunner is that you are reliant on a camera. Can anyone comment on the advantages and disadvantages of the Stryker RWS? Best Regards, Nemesis

Another reason for the slow rate of fire could be dust. Dust blocks LOS and you lose your target. Your man will then not re-acquire a tank target. Dust will also slow your fire at area targets.

Here is how I deal with overwatch elements: 1) When in the open, they are priority targets for long range HMG fire and armored HE chuckers (but, as Jason C. says, don't unmask if you don't have good odds). Use forward deployed OPs and units with binocs help to identify these units for your heavy weapons. I usually do not, however, shoot at these guys (or anyone else if I can avoid it) when they are in cover at long range. 2) As Jason C says, always bring mortars on the defense for protection against guns. Put them in positions where a spotter (but not the mortar if possible) can safely move around and spot multiple likely overwatch (especially gun) positions. 3) A defense where much of your force is reverse slope while your heavy weapons (HMGs, AT guns, etc) have larger and more forward fields of fire can make things be uncomfortable for the attacker's overwatch elements. How? Your opponent is forced to manuever more to get into position against your reverse slope main body and they are exposed to your heavy weapons when they have to do their manuevering. HMGs hit enemy mortars/HMGs, Armor/ATRs hit halftracks carrying guns, etc.. 4) Against opponents who do not scout well or who leave open flanks...you can often manuever bypassed ambush teams/OPs/sharpshooters/forward infantry units into place to attack overwatchers. The same guys who do not scout well often leave their overwatch teams without security. Also note that you don't always have to kill the overwatchers--just force them to defend themselves and engage their tormentors instead of your MLR. The BIG challenge is getting close enough to the overwatchers (who have better long range capability) to tie them up/kill them. This is often difficult on more open maps, but I have done it (and others have done it to me) on maps with more cover. 5) Keep in mind that most of the time you don't have to worry about overwatch! For example, when given a choice between using your precious artillery to engage manuever elements or overwatch elements, it is usually enemy manuever elements that you want to engage. The exception might be that 150mm IG that is eating you up, a known concentration of 3 mortar teams, etc. But in general--if you stop his manuever elements, you win the battle. Only engage overwatch elements (in cover) if they really are a serious threat. A related sidenote--enemy HMGs in cover are rarely a mortal threat and firing at them is usually a waste of ammo. You often have to kill the entire unit to reduce their effectiveness--e.g., if you kill 5 of 6 members of a stationary MG42 HMG team, the last guy still has all the ammo and will lose it only when he moves! The trick for HMG teams is to attrite them before they get into cover. Priority target out of cover, non-target when in cover. Best Regards, Nemesis

I generally agree with Jason C., but would only further stress a couple of points and add a bit. 1) The importance of using covered routes cannot be stressed enough. When moving in the open your men have up to 75% exposure. When moving through pines / woods they have only 10 to 15% exposure. Also, on hilly/urban maps there are often "dead areas" where the attacker likely cannot be seen and an attacker may utilize these (but be wary of the defender who rushes forward to deny you these opportunties!). Hence, terrain should decide your attacking formation to a very large extent. 2) Heavy weapons overwatch is very important. Armor should not move into areas that are not covered by mortars (you cannot cover all areas, but you should at least be well positioned to quickly manuever into place). Infantry (ideally) should not move into areas that are not covered by HMGs, guns or mortars. The idea is that when you hit resistance, you want to start hitting back ASAP, achieve fire superiority, and manuever for the kill. 3) I agree that company-sized thrusts are the way to go. Often, however, you get away with using just two platoons (especially when using veterans or better) when going for secondary objectives or when you simply don't have an infantry company per objective. Note that a two platoon approach is more risky and you cannot expect them to do much more than take an enemy platoon-sized position. Even then, it is often best to reinforce them with overwatch MGs/mortars or an armored car/tank. NEVER expect a single platoon attack to succeed. 4) The flanking halfsquads that Jason mentions are important. They will give you good intell on what is on your flanks and will uncover the source of flanking fire (instead of just getting sound contacts). Often, they will also find weakness in your opponent's defense and you can change the axis of your main attack. They may also give you intel on how your opponent is moving his reserves and these men can sometimes impede the movement of those reserves. They can also sometimes deceive your opponent about the location of your major thrust (half squads look like full squads from a distance). 5) For a specific-attack formation when cover is only moderately good, I often like to attack with columns of platoons (i.e., one platoon follows another platoon with another platoon behind that, etc.). This allows you to maximise the very best of available cover. When you meet significant resistance, you can bring your forces online and overwhelm. If you take flanking fire, it is easy to deploy to face the threat from a column formation. The point platoon typically takes some losses from HMGs and ambushes (remember to keep a scout forward and keep heavy weapons overwatch!), but the rest of your force often winds up near the objective in good shape. At that point, your trailing forces can be brought online and you can overwhelm. Artillery is very dangerous to forces attacking in column (since it falls in columns in CM). Sometimes, artillery targetted on your lead platoon will arrive too late to get that platoon, but will crush a follow on platoon. Hence, keep this is mind as this is a weakness of this approach! 6) When choosing an attack route, look at the last 300 meters to your objectives. These last 300 meters are far more important than the 800 meters that came before them. Often players will select routes that provide great cover for the first 800 meters and then no cover for the last 300. Better to suffer a bit from long range MG fire than to have to cross open terrain within 300 meters of your opponent's MLR. 7) Don't forget to bring smoke (from mortars / artillery FOs / guns / vehicles, etc.)! No route is perfect and you will likely need its LOS blocking benefits at some point. 8) Remember that you don't have to take every flag! You can ignore some objectives in the short term to achieve concentration. Fragmenting your forces into platoon sized attacks on each flag is a recipe for disaster. 9) Overconcentration is also dangerous. While a company or a company + a platoon is a great attacking force, going beyond this makes you very vulernable to HE chuckers of all kinds. Concentration is great--so long as there is enough cover and space to support it. Best Regards, Nemesis

Hi Schrullenscaft, I installed mod BMPs. So far, they seem to have solved the problem (although they have introduced numerous minor problems). Thanks for your help! Jay

Hi Schrullenhaft, Thanks for your response. The problem occurs both when I am a host and a client. It only occurs in TCP/IP games. I see this in CMAK...not sure about CMBB. Alt tabbing has no effect. I have turned off anti-aliasing (to no effect). I am going to try the new BMPs. Any other thoughts? Jay

I get a blank toolbar (bottom of screen in game) about 75% of the time in TCP/IP games. FYI, I have a Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition. I turn off anti-virus/firewall software and suspect that this is a video card problem (but then, what do I know?). Best Regards and Many Thanks, Nemesis

34

Want an even better mix? Try British 3.5 inch mortars with Universal Carriers. Far more ammo, more firepower (35 vs. 26 blast I think), more mobility, and some armor protection.