Drusus

Well, a 81mm mortar tube weighs about 20kg and I think it is about a meter long. If we are talking about 120mm mortar then the tube is something like 200kg. Also, you would need to hit the exact center of the tube. Is the minimum thickness the amount that is needed to guarantee protection or the amount that is likely to stop the bullet? Last thing is (and this shows I don't know anything about armour): Is there a difference between a plate and a tube being fired upon? BTW here are some nice pictures about finnish mortars. Pictures

I am just wondering what would happen to a mortar tube if it is hit. It is quite thick and made of steel so I think normal 7.62 bullet wouldn't do much to it. Though I have to say that I haven't ever shot a mortar with a rifle... Would a normal mortar shell explode if fired with rifle? When we were shooting to rocky terrain, if it happened that the shell come down in a such way that the detonator (sytytin in finnish, don't know what it is called in english. Anyways the thing that is supposed to make the round explode) was not the first thing to hit the ground the round wouldn't detonate. If fired without detonator I think that the rate with which the rounds detonate would be low. Ofcourse rifle bullet hitting is going to have high energy to a small area, but has anybody tried this? Pictures, please I remember that there was an accident with double loading a 120mm mortar in Rovajärvi, which is easy to do because the mortar is launched by pulling a wire. On the other hand it is not easy to do by accident. The interesting thing is that the shells or the detonators didn't explode. Only the base and additional powder of both of the mortars exploded. This resulted in the explosion of the mortars tube and several injury to many of the members of the crew. I don't remember if there were anybody killed. But the point is I don't think normal mortar shells explode that easily.

APPARENTLY, THIS TIME IRAQ DID NOT USE NERVE GAS AS THEY DID IN 1988, IN HALABJA (GEOCOORD:3511N/04559E), IRAQ, BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID OF POSSIBLE RETALIATION FROM THE UNITED STATES (U.S.) LED COALITION. It seems that they are not mixing things up. They are saying that Saddam used WP. They are saying that WP is chemical weapon. They are saying that Saddam didn't use stronger chemical weapons (nerve gas) because Saddam was afraid of the coalition reaction. Now, to say that the reports writer just confused WP with mustard gas or something else (Sarin is ruled out) doesn't seem logical. I think there is quite good and accurate information in the report. So scanty information doesn't seem likely. And if WP wasn't used it doesn't make the situation any different. They are saying over and over again that WP is a chemical weapon. The only way out is that it isn't clear (at least to me) who is saying that WP is a chemical weapon and what is the writers position. Actually I'm not 100% sure the writer is saying that WP is chemical weapon. Maybe he is just reporting the fact that a source has said that WP was used and that the source thinks that WP is a chemical weapon. There is also one other interesting piece of information: KURDISH REBELS' EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING HELP FROM U.S. LED COALITION FORCE -- THE KURDISH RESISTANCE'S DECISION TO RISE UP AND FIGHT HUSSEIN'S FORCES WAS TRIGGERED BY THE OVERWHELMING MILITARY POWER DISPLAYED BY THE COALITION DURING "DESERT STORM" AND THE PROPAGANDA BROADCASTS OF VOICE OF AMERICA.KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES REALLY BELIEVED THAT EVENTUALLY THE COALITION FORCE WOULD COME TO HELP THEM IN THEIR FIGHTING AGAINST IRAQI FORCES. AFTER LEARNING OF U.S. PRESIDENT BUSH'S "STAY OUT OF IRAQ INTERNAL AFFAIRS" POLICY, KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES FELT AS THEY WERE SET UP AND LET DOWN BY THE COALITION FORCE This is the kind of thing you want to avoid when trying to win the populations confidence. I really think that the war is lost or win because of this kind of things, not with weapons. This war, at least.

I think the reason why WP shouldn't be used in populated areas is that there propably is going to be civilians in the area. Intent or not. But as said before WP is not the real issue here. WP wasn't the real issue during Saddam's years either. If it was acceptable to use WP when attacking Fallujah is a question which has no clear answer. I just would like to ask why it was or wasn't ok for Saddam and why it was or wasn't ok for USA to use WP. For me the answer is not about WP but the reasons why it is used. You could insert bombs dropped from plane to that question and the answer will propably be the same. I happen to think that it is really important that people don't think that there is a (universally) correct answer to that question. But it should be a know fact that your enemies are doing bad things for evil reasons and you are doing good things for noble reasons. I haven't read any newspapers from WWI era but I am sure both sides were sure they were right and the others wrong. There could be the view that AIF are patriotic. Now they are terrorists. Would you consider yourself patriotic or terrorist if Iraq occupied your country and you were fighting against the occupation? Different views, different answers... And yes, there would be a legal government which you are fighting against. People knowing finnish winter war history should know what Terijoen hallitus stands for. The war is going to be lost or won in the mind of people of Iraq. If majority of _them_ think that USA is occupying their country and there is a puppet government and the AIF are doing a good job fighting for their freedom then the war will be lost. What does this have to do with CMSF? This is one reason why there should be penalties for blowing everything up. Actually, I think this should be the biggest reason. Not what some European papers are going to write about the war. But what the local people will think about the US side. Liberators or not? Ofcourse there is the possibility that I am full of BS. Now, ofcourse USA has made their situation in the WP question a bit difficult. If they are claiming that when Saddam used WP it was bad and use of chemical weapons then they can't say that when they use it, it is ok. Also claiming that it was used just for illuminating when it wasn't is going to raise the question why the incorrect information? If they stay they are AIF, if they try to leave they are AIF trying to run away... Is that really what happened?

I think we have some double standards here. Source: declassifed 1995 intelligence document from the Department of Defense

If you can proof that Kojo was part of the program, I am very interested to hear it. There was a firm which was a part of the food-for-oil program and Kojo happened to work in it. If you find more, please tell me. You can start digging here: BBC news Also, if you are saying that UN or that any country was bribed to act against the war then feel free to give the facts. Yes, there were inviduals in many countries who took bribes. And some of them were politics. But to say that if you bribe Galloway you have stopped the British from going to war then you are wrong... Also, somebody would be inclined to say that the US is in a way doing the same: BBC news This is as in: "If you are against the war, your corporations will get good deals from oil-for-food" and "If you are fighting with us, your corporations will get good deals from reconstruction programs". I could go on but I think I have said too much already. But just one more thing. I think that the war could have been a good thing. But the reasons were wrong. And the plan was wrong (the part after mission accomplished, that is). And I am afraid that there will be fighting and bad things happening in that country for a long time. I mean as in civil war or some kind of not-so-free government. I ofcourse hope I am wrong.

I think this article does a good job summarizing the WP issue: CS Monitor So, it seems clear that WP is not a chemical weapon. But that should have been clear from the start, even finnish mortar teams have WP in their arsenal. We bastards...

I think in CMAK you see the real number of enemies killed. In CMBO it was affected by LOS. I don't know about CMBB.

I know what you are talking about, I think I see a unit roster in that picture...

And when all this gets wet you can see a on the soldiers face.

Im wondering which side has more powerfull divine intervention? Not that it matters, I heard that M1A1 frontal armour is still invulnerable.

Well, luckily for the people looking forward to balanced quick battles, there is 1000 points for each team, 2x2km map and a location to hold in the end. There will be no air support to rescue the US forces. The M1 will cost so much and the T55 so little that the games will be balanced. You want 155mm artillery to support your forces? So pay for it. Is it realistic that such forces (US forces without air support facing lots of T-72?) would fight against each other? No. But QBs have never been realistic. Take the normal ME QB from CMx1. You know exactly how large a force you are facing (in points, but still). Unrealistic. You know very well where your enemy's troops are going to be in the start of the battle. Unrealistic. You can do a flag rush. Now, I don't remember that happening too often in real life. (Or is the saying "get there firstest with the mostest" about this? ) In CMAK I see lots of times Allies attacking with Priests and such. Is that because they are the absolute best armoured vehicles there are? No. It is because Priest has good price/effectivenes ratio. The King Tiger is a real killer in CMx1 but you don't see that too often because it is so expensive. M1 in CMSF will propably be the same as KT in CMx1. So, the point is: We should not worry about the balance of QBs or if the forces fighting in them are realistic. The balance will come through point system. And the QBs will be unrealistic, but it is the way it has always been.

Ofcourse the example you gave (88mm vs sherman) is something that if modeled correctly doesn't take a bit out of the gameplay. Having a simulator be as historical as possible is good. Having as much detail as possible is mixed case. Having detailed armor modeling is good. As long as the details stay "inside the model" everything is good. But once the player needs to worry about too many things (like modelling wounded too much to the detail, having the player call in ambulance etc.) the gameplay gets worse. In this way, modelling the game 1-to-1 is good. Making the player command every man is bad.

The TOW is out of fuel after the first 300m. After that is uses the velocity (300 m/s) it gained during the first 300m to fly to its target.

I think the CMx1 system was quite good. But there should be something else in CMx2. The command delay should have two parts, first one is the time the squad needs to implement the order. This is done well in CMx1. The second part should be the time needed to get the command from higher levels to the squad leader. This is something which is very limited in CMx1. Ofcourse there is the problem that who should the player be in the chain of command. In CMx1 I think the player was _every_ squads leader. Yes, there is a small delay if the platoon is not in command, but not big enough. In CMx2 I hope we will see that the player is the company commander in this respect. If the chain of command is broken from HQ to the squad, the penalty should be _big_. Optimally I would like to see a system where squads have missions. Advance there, defend that building, delay missions etc. Now, giving new missions to the squad should be slow. Giving orders which are a part of the mission should be fast. I mean if you are assaulting a building, you could first lay down suppressive fire and then give the NOW! order. Small delays. But if you instead want the squad to move to the other side of the village because there is a new threat, the delay should be big. Now all this is propably something which will be impossible to implement in a computer game. But anyways the command delay should have two parts. The part it takes the squad leader to give the command to his squad and the time it takes for the command to arrive from the player to the squadleader. The US player in CMx2 should enjoy much smaller delays, and this is because the US system allows commands go faster in the chain.

I would like to see a system with which you could coordinate your units better. That would mean for example you could call in artillery from time x to y, and have your troops move to point A and stop there until the barrage stops and then begin assaulting. All this time coordinated, that is. But number 1 priority for me is better FO handling in general. And camels.

Actually they don't have confidence in their AI. That's one reason they are not going to do a Syrian campaign. You would need an AI capable of doing attacking for that. Defending is much easier for the AI to do. Making a good AI for this kind of game is hard. You could propably put as much effort in the AI alone than in the rest of the game and still the AI wouldn't be that great.

If you ran out of CDFs, but you happened to have a lot of explosives, wouldn't you put them under some rocks, and use that? That is an IED. From the AAR thread, there is mentions of different kinds of IEDs used by the US forces. Now if you take it so that an IED means a lone roadside bomb, then it has only political effect. But IEDs are a lot more than that.

It is enough for me that the AI will handle it. I just hope that the casualties are modelled somehow. It is highly unrealistic that a squad gets 3 wounded and just goes on fighthig like nothing has happened. Would you say modelling panzerfausts is out of the scope of CM just because you don't give commands regarding its use?

Im happy you took the the time to make a new account to tell us this information.

From the AAR thread: "CASUALTIES MUST NEVER BE LEFT BEHIND! The squad leader must ensure that every Marine moves with a buddy. Each buddy is responsible for pulling the other out of the fight if he goes down. The squad leader and fire team leaders must have accountability for all their Marines at all times. There is no excuse for Marines being left behind in a building while the squad pulls out." If it is in scope of the squad level tactics, I think it is in the cope of CM's tactical scale.

I would think that leaving dead soldiers behind would be almoust as bad. But many weapons aim to only injure the enemy, land mine for example. Soldier who is wounded so badly he can never fight again is actually worse for your mission than a dead one. Takes a lot of resources. That is in the same way as a injured driver in a car accident is worse for the insurance company than the same driver dead.

I think MOUT will be the focus of the campaing. But you can play the '44 Italy type of QB just fine. Even if the campaing isn't really interesting to you, it will still be better than the CMAK campaing was, right? And there _will_ be interesting quick battles ahead. Don't like playing US vs Syrians? Just play US vs US, or better jet, wait for the addons and play US vs France...

What would happen if there were lots of people defending the big cities in Syria? Do you really think it would be over before it started? If you have troops with modern infantry AT-weapons _and_ the will to fight to the end there will be lots of hard fighting. Or atleast enough for a game + addons... I might not be correct, but I think the thing was different in Iraq. In the war the defenders didn't want to fight to the end. That is most of the army was just pleased to see US troops so that they can go home. Ofcourse there were some who did fight. There have been some people mentioning some interesting battles in the Iraq war. For example the situation where US artillery positions was attacked by T-72s (this was in GWI, but still). Now, that was not supposed to happen, was it? There were also interesting tactical situations in OIF. In the now ongoing stage the insurgents are laking in modern AT-weapons. Still attacking Fallujah was really hard. I don't know the amount of enemy fighters there was defending the city, but I would think that well organized army defending Damascus would be even harder. If the defenders have a company of infantry, supported by a mortar platoon and some ATGM or modern versions of RPGs I think you are going to have some problems attacking. For example if we take the organization for the defending Coy to be something like this: 3 platoons of infantry, every one of them has 10-20 RPGs. The platoons have snipers in them, every one of them have FO in them and they have some heavy AT weapons with them, modern versions of RPG, for example. Now, this all is supported by 81mm or 120mm mortars and possibly by even more AT weapons from higher levels. That means ATGMs. Add to this a grenade machinegun platoon, for example. Your Stryker company given a mission to "capture the flag" in 60 minutes would have interesting times ahead.

Im willing to accept that if you say claymore mines are not militarily effective, and are political.