juan_gigante
-
Posts
796 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by juan_gigante
-
-
Considering some of the recent discussion in Congress on whether or not to have a competion between the M4 and other military carbines (basically the HK 416), this survey seems quite relevant.Nearly 80 percent of Soldiers said in a recent survey they are satisfied with their weapons, though almost half recommended a replacement for the standard-issued M9 pistol or ammunition with more stopping power.Additionally, nearly 30 percent of Soldiers in the December 2006 survey, conducted on behalf of the Army by the Center for Naval Analyses, said the M4 carbine should be replaced or more deadly ammunition fielded.
"Across weapons, Soldiers have requested weapons and ammunition with more stopping power/lethality," the report said.
...
The survey lends weight to Army claims that current-issued weapons are effective despite growing criticism from Soldiers and lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the service should re-assess the standard M4 - as well as the M9 pistol.
In April, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) sent a letter to acting Army secretary Pete Geren taking issue with the service's sole-source contract to buy about 500,000 M4 carbines despite evidence that new rifle technologies could provide more reliable weapons.
...
The CNA surveyors also asked Soldiers for their opinions on possible improvements to their small arms. The top request from Soldiers was for more knock-down power, reigniting the debate over America's small arms caliber choices.
"When speaking to experts and Soldiers on site, many commented on the limited ability to effectively stop targets, saying that those personnel targets who were shot multiple times were still able to continue pursuit," the report said.
A full 20 percent of M9 users said they wanted a new weapon, and "some were more specific and requested a return to the Colt .45 for standard issue pistols," including others who asked for hollow-point ammo.
Has anyone's mind changed on this issue lately? Should we start replacing M4s with HK416s? Thoughts?
-
Adam - the key point that you're not getting is that with the absolute US air and artillery supremacy, EVERY US force is a heavy force. Two guys with a radio have the same combat power of an Abrams. The light Stryker elements are more capable than a heavy force at fixing and moving around and past enemy positions, and can move farther. At the operational level, air and arty do the vast majority of the killing.
-
Adam, a distinction I think you're missing between Stryker forces and heavier units that gives the Strykers an advantage is their C3I network. Depending on how many toys the Strykers get shipped with, the tactical commanders will have a far better image of the battlefield and be able to communicate much better. This tactical coordination will pay off at the operational level by allowing the forces to stay better organized and keep moving past and around enemy hardpoints.
In addition, this superior C3I network should help get air and artillery support quicker and more accurately. Stryker units advance, find an enemy force, call in fire support, move past quickly. The point is, the unit is designed to move past the enemy at an operational level and leave the killing to air and arty, instead of having to hammer through everything like a Heavy force would.
-
Am I correct to assume that there will be some way to turn off all the added interface symbols, colors and such for the purpose of taking more pristine screenshots?
-
I'm really not sure why people are complaining quite this much about real-time. I mean, if you haven't noticed lately, real life is in real time. Soldiers, believe it or not, actually do real-time strategy without relying on silly run-and-gun tactics which have been stereotyped as the RTS norm. Now, I fully expect to do most of my playing in WeGo - I'm not sure I could keep up in real time. But to argue that real time is unrealistic, will require a vastly different style of play, or generally won't function well in a realistic environment like CM:SF is a little unfair.
-
I think that dynamic lighting could really improve the many night battles I expect to face. The advantage US guys get from NVGs might not be quite as big if there are flares, explosions, and fires everywhere, providing light for the Syrians and blinding or hampering the vision of the NVG-equipped US forces. Of course, this is probably a big enough thing that if they haven't done it already, they probably won't. And if I were developing CM:SF with a feature like dynamic lighting, I'd have been bragging about it already. So I bet they won't do it, or at least not to the extent where it would have much gameplay effect.
-
That the AI will pick one of several plans is so cool. I absolutely cannot wait to make scenarios. Honestly, I don't think I'll even play the game much with how long I'd like to spend in the editor!
-
Do the scenarios have to be balanced?
-
How is that for a visual? </font>Originally posted by Imperial Grunt:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:
I stripped down to my underwear when I was in the station, plus I rigged a pipe to blow some air at me
-
Last time I pull numbers out of ass without checking first.Originally posted by rune:It is a 105mm, and yes, changed to the 30mm.
Rune
Thanks for the news, guys!
-
No AC-130? My heart is breaking! I suppose it might be tough to pick a variant to model, as they are changing so often, but I think that the AC-130 would be a really cool and useful tool to have available.
Admittedly, the 155mm howitzer on the AC-130 is basically the same as getting Paladin support, but I think that the 25mm chain gun and the 40mm Bofors guns (or whatever their counterparts would be in the variant modeled) would be really cool to have available for support fires.
-
-
YESOriginally posted by aka_tom_w:the rounds in the "ready rack" on AFV's
-
Grammar aside, I think it's a good question. A key issue with 1:1 representation is whether or not the Tac AI of the soldiers one cannot directly control will act in an intelligent and realistic way. That said, it probably fits better in the 1:1 representation thread.
-
I've heard of shells much larger than that being used as IEDs in Iraq - 155s and larger. So, I'd expect 105s at the minimum.Originally posted by Sixxkiller:What types of IED? Will this include all the way up to say 105mm Arty shells? Man I dont know if I like this to be honest. It may bring back some close calls that so far I havent had nightmares about....
-
LTC G (or anyone else), if I could ask for you to expand on one of your earlier points?
What types of rounds are you assuming here? I don't know as much about different types of rifle rounds as some, but I know that different types of rounds, even within the same calibur, have different penetration figures. Are there special 7.62 X 39mm rounds that can penetrate US body armor that Syrian SF might have? What about 5.45 and the AK-74?Originally posted by LTC G:4. Small arms. This can range from the AK round (7.62x39 to 5.56x54(?) and is frankly all about the same. The NATO round has better penetration due to its higher velocity. Neither can penetrate U.S. Body Armor and both can penetrate an unarmored body, so I don't see any difference, except possibly for acting against a steel helmet.
At what sorts of ranges can the armor stop what rounds? As I understood it, US armor wouldn't necessarily stop a point-blank 7.62 round.
Thanks for any clarification you can provide!
-
I rarely have time to play CMBB anymore, but I still enjoy reading JasonC's excellent posts.
-
John, I think you made some very good points about the strategic nature of Hezbollah, but I still believe that on the tactical level of CMSF, Hezbollah fighters can be represented by a standard "Irregular militia" unit, with higher experience and morale and better equipped. I'd be interested to hear from those with more knowledge on the subject than I if there are any significant tactical differences between Hezbollah and Irregular Militia X other than those we would already expect to have control of (morale, experience,some equipment changes).
-
I have returned from Edmonton, and lived to tell the tale. The horrors I underwent are too terrible to be catalogue, but it was nice being in a place without a ridiculous liquor tax.
-
I remember back in one of the 5.56mm vs 7.62mm threads, we discussed U.S. soldiers using captured AKs, both in Vietnam and Iraq, and someone posted an AAR which mentioned a U.S. soldier grabbing an AK off the ground and using it, and being subjected to a hail of fire from other U.S. forces. He wasn't hit, but he definately didn't use the weapon anymore.Originally posted by MikeyD:For a CMSF battle the practice may be frowned upon for the same reason - sound. The bark of an AK being fired may bring on friendly fire incidents with U.S. troop firing on their own AK-firing guys! A more likely scenario is a team needs to clean a mg nest out of a building and there's an abandoned RPG laying around. But then again the abandoned RPG may be booby trapped - another reason why picking up discarded weapons would be officially frowned upon.
-
I'd recommend T-34/85 for your next manual - classic, common tank. I think that, in all fairness, it really should be a Russian, and the T-34/85 is the classic Russian tank, I think. Plus, it is a good counterpart for the Panther.
And if it means anything, I'd much, much rather buy a PDF and get it within a day or so than wait to have a printed version printed and shipped. That would make it cheaper to produce, and consumers could get it quicker and easier. Honestly, anyone who is dedicated enough to actually buy a "Tank Usage Manual" for CM:BB is probably dedicated enough to not illegally share it.
-
I always thought GW Syndrome was because of depleted uranium shells, but Wikipedia thinks that nobody really knows what caused it, though we've nailed down a few possibilities.Originally posted by MikeyD:I'm reminded of Desert Storm 1, where chemical alarms were always going off and troops were constantly struggling with their bulky chemical suits. Even if chemicals aren't actually in the game there could be a big mobility and situational awareness hit from Allied troops forced to don chemical protection as a caution.
Back to Desert Storm. Didn't the Brits come out a year or two ago with a report linking Gulf War Syndrome with trace amounts of nerve gas (either used offensively or inadvertantly blown up by the allies)? That would alter the allied casualty count for Desert Storm from the low hundereds to the tens of thousands! Even the 'easy wins' aren't easy.
-
Boy...Originally posted by Sir 37mm:Sigh… bend over Sturmy
I'm glad I was v42below's serf and not yours.
-
Though he may have the mental capacity of a six-year old, Sir 37mm is a Knight of the Pool, and you are but a serf. While I would never think of telling you to not insult him or some such nonsense, at least get your facts straight. Sir 37mm is from Merry Old England, not the land Down Under. I suppose this means he hasn't got an excuse, though.Originally posted by stoat:He's nice enough, and certainly is not harmful to anything, but he is limited by his intelligence. Then again, we expect nothing more from an Aussie.
Tips on medium combined forces scenario 2P/TCP?
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
I am a huge fan of mortars. If I'm attacking with, say, a battalion of infantry, I'll want 2 or 3 batteries of 81mm mortars on gun-killing duty. They pick a good spot, either in my deployment zone or not that far forward, and they usually don't move from there once established, until well into the battle and I have safe lanes for them to travel forwards. I believe that guns are the second most frightening tool a defender has, after uberarmor tanks, and killing guns as soon as they open up is one of my top priorities. Nothing can ruin an advance like a 150mm gun opening up on infantry. I also like to liberally sprinkle in 50/60mm mortars in the main body of troops, which move along with the main body and then stop when they get to a good spot to overwatch from. I use these guys to take out targets of opportunity - to get a key enemy MG to put its head down, to help establish fire superiority in the first turn or two of an infantry firefight, to get guns in remote key-holes that the 81s farther back can't see. I am more liberal with ammo use with the 50s than the 81s - for starters, the 50s usually have more of it, and being farther forward are more likely to die before they get the rounds off. The 81s I also like to save some ammo because if a battle stalls and turns into a slug fest, the guy with rounds left to fire with 5 turns to go has a distinct advantage over the guy who is dry, and it can be enough of an advantage to break the enemy in the few final frantic turns of a battle. I rarely buy FO modules anymore - on-map mortars are so much more reactive, so much more accurate, and are basically just as good at killing hammer/eggshell targets like guns. What do FOs do better than mortars? Hurting platoon sized positions? Sure, if it lands on target and they haven't moved back to a second line in the time between when I identify the position and when rounds land. And my T-34s and SP guns probably (hopefully) have plenty of HE to do the same thing, but as with mortars, quicker and more accurately.