mazex

Damn it, my grandmother has a picture of herself with a pair of binoculars on the bridge of a German class VII sub at sea somewhere... It would be nice to add here. She knew the captain and got a short joy ride on a training mission so they where doing it in 1943 too /Mazex

Is it only me that finds the call to arms "The war on terror" incredibly naive? It is even more mideval than the death penalty where the state tells people that killing somone is NOT acceptable but if you do it, the state kills you... Talk about not setting a good example... Has ever terrorism been stopped by adding more of the ingredient that ignited the fire? Just look at other examples of modern terrorism, IRA, ETA etc. It just got worse the more military and police that was pured down to stop the terrorists... If the West is going to stop the middle east terrorism, it is by helping those countries solving their problems peacefully and by showing moral superiority. By doing that we can prove that democracy is the way to go, and that solving conflicts the ancient/schoolyard way with the fists is not the way to go... There was someone in the region that tried to explain this 2000 years ago but the enlighted leaders of the West that claim moral superiority still don't seem to get it! Yes, now I'm the one that's going to be called naive but I'm sure that the violent IRA fractions would still be running rampage if the UK would have declared a "War on terror" on them instead of negotiations. It is MY firm belief that you don't stop terrorism by violence, just as you don't make people stop killing each other by killing them or stop kids on the school yard from fighting by going out there slapping them! /Mazex

He he, so you've also been scouting Syria maps using Google Earth Been all over the place...

Ravlunda? Kabusa? Revinge? </font>

Regarding the potential invasion threat from Russia I think that it's getting smaller and smaller every day. I do think that we would be just as bad as you at taking care of our borders if a potential Russian invasion would ever be possible with todays growing Russian dependency on the west... The Swedish army nowadays is getting cut in half every other year it feels like... At least it has a very high technological level. No one can argue that the swedish tanks, IFV:s, aircraft, artillery, conventional subs are on par with the best there are, even though the budgets are getting thinner and thinner. As I see it the finnish military is also technologically advanced, but still a notch down from sweden! I do understand the uneasy feeling of having Russia next door but after you selected the old navy F-18 instead of the JAS-39 my feelings of a "mutual defence interest" got a dent I must admit Got this from the CIA factbook today regarding military budgets: Finland: $1.8 billion (FY98/99) Sweden: $5.729 billion (2004) The finnish numbers are quite old but I guess you haven't raised them that much since 1999 (rather cut them like the rest of the world?). /Mazex

Yup - it's a T55/Marksman which is an ugly beast... The question that I don't get is how a former ski jumper gone alcoholic/criminal is going to help you take over the world? I guess it must be the son of the Finnish Thunder God that has taken over his body?

No silly, because Swedes don't have any enemies! Closest they have is the Norwegians Steve </font>

Or this Finnish mountain APC? The Patria AMV, nice litte vehicle too! /Mazex

But what Finnish desert vehicle is this? The AMOS version of the CV 90... Mmm

You don't mix up the CV90 which is modern with the old IKV91 that is from the 70:ies and a completely different vehicle, even though it looks kind of similar? The IKV91:s are currently beeing phased out now (don't know if any are left in service)... The CV 90 system would otherwise be interesting to put up against the Bradley family as they are also available in a lot of different "tastes" - 120mm mortars, 120mm anti tank, AAA, Command vehicle etc.. The STRV 122 would naturally be interesting to pit against the M1A2 also... If it wouldn't be for the crews (as I'm quite sure that the US (or UK) vehicle crews are the best in the world at the moment) I think they would have a hard time! /Mazex

I think he must be talking about this one: The Swedish SODD 055 at full speed through the snow... Lovely image! /Mazex

Well if I had never played any CM game and thus didn't have CMBB before I would maybe think twice before buying CMC AND CMBB at the same time... If merged together "for real" with some patching done on the old CMBB engine it would be easier to get few dollars more out of the oldies, and suck the new ones in... As it is now I don't really care for my own sake. Set the price to $55 for the standalone and I will buy it anyway...

To lighten things up a bit here I think it's time for a quiz (and some Guiness??) Below are three images of Swedish armoured vehicles that probably are unfamilar to most of you, therefore they are excellent for a quiz... Vehicle A: Vehicle B: Vehicle C: Question 1. Which one is a: STRV 122 - Beefed up Leopard 2-A5 Main Battle Tank CV 9040 - IFV for an infantry squad with a 40mm Bofors gun, like a Bradley but better PATGB 203A - Personnel Carrier used for UN (police like) missions. Question 2. Which one is according to Swedish doctrine never meant to be in the "real" frontline, even though it has advanced multilayer armor, weights 23 tons and has a fully turret covered 20mm gun? Question 3. If you answered the same vehicle above - does it look very much lika a ______________ ? Bonus question. Which of the vehicles above would you like to be able to command in CMX2 module 13 - "US invades Sweden after pressure from irritated BFC forum members"? /Mazex

VERY well said! /Mazex

Thanks for the pointer! I downloaded it and played it. I was my first "real" WSPMBT scenario (I've just tried a fast Sweden attacks Norway before to try them nice swedish Leo 2:s in action (STRV122)). I have however played SP since 1995, so I am well accustomed with the engine... Impressions after my first Stryker mission, which in some way concerns game mechanics of WSPMBT, but in many ways apply to all middle east Stryker games First of all, the scenario was good fun and I recommend it! The problem was that what made it fun was that it was not historically correct, as it must be virually impossible to win the scenario with just five wounded and no KIA. I got 28 GI:s killed and lost 3 Strykers. A number of other Strykers where immobilized - I learned the hard way that they are no good at crossing ditches (at least in WSPMBT!), one got stuck in the sand and three got immobilized after RPG-7 hits. Another Stryker lesson learnt the hard way - the ammo for those GL armed babies is expended quick! As I said 3 of them where also completely destroyed, among them the med evac Stryker witch made rescuing the pilots impossible (especially as they where inside it at the moment and where toasted too!), that was a no no but restarting a scenario takes the surprise away the next time. I did however salvage that old Kiowa and naturally killed off all them damn insurgents... A few comments regading the WSPMBT engine: The snipers feels way too powerful compared to the other units. Units taking cover should be hard to hit with a MG but when three Strykers stand in a cricle 100 meters from a beat up squad that is on a plain sandfield it feels very wrong when you have fired six 7.62/50cal bursts from each without a kill... Another one that has been there since SP 1.0 - after having 5 Strykers (two with GL:s) expending all their ammo for one turn on a poor guerilla squad right infront of them it does not feel right when you finally unload a squad from one of your Strykers and that damn squad gets the first shot! Back to the main problem... To set up the victory conditions for this scenario it should really be that if you loose any US troops (or say more than two) you should fail the mission. How fun would that have been as a game? Having masses of guerilla and insurgents storming those two Strykers at the chopper while waiting for the others to finish their gauntlet run through the narrow streets wouldn't have been challenging without losses... And having all RPG-7:s just bounce off your Strykers side armour from close range wouldn't feel right either. Someone might say that CM:SF will not have vitory conditions like that (almost no losses) but still, a small rescue operation where three Strykers get destroyed and several others get damaged while loosing 28 GI:s whould sure as hell give the President problem with the media, especially if it happens more than one time! OK, I wasn't too careful so the losses should for sure be a lot lower for an experienced WSPMBT player but still! Final comment - somehow it felt very much like beeing given a bunch of Sdkfz 251/X and plowing through the streets of Stalingrad... Fun for one scenario like this but for a whole game? /Mazex

So you waste ammo for killing off enemies - I thought that firearms where only for emergencies when you had lost your pukko during firece combat

OK, now I get what you mean, the use of this type of dummys outside the regular "straight forward 300 meter firing range for fresh recruits" was VERY rare (thats why we took the picture). The situations when they where used was for quick "ambushes" where you fired a magazine or so at these targets and then moved on. The most common tagets for such live ammunition exercises where the so called SAAB-targets which where aluminium silouettes that where initially hidden and then suddenly popped up for a few seconds and "fell" when hit or where hidden again by the officer in charge of the exercise. After that other targets popped up to simulate that the enemy had swiched to alternate firing positions, or advanced in cover. During these exercises the officer regularly yelled take cover heavy enemy fire and took those that still had their heads up out of the exercise. Of course live opponents with light emitting accessories on the guns and vests that register hits where used back then also, and today it's the most common way to practice actual combat in the swedish army. It never removes the need for dummys for live ammunition, but as I said - 95 percent of the time it was done against SAAB-targets... /Mazex [ October 22, 2005, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: mazex ]

I must be stupid, cause I don't understand what you mean. For me the size of the dummies should naturally be as real as possible, and they where fired at from distances between 50 and 400 meters, hidden behind trees etc... I guess that none of the fresh hits can be seen as a 7.62 holes should hardly be visible on a grainy scanned bw picture like that. The dots you see on them are for certain old "fixed" hits. A small green sticker sized 1x1 cm is applied to be able to reuse them a few times. I can however not guarantee that the guy with Carl-Gustaf anti-tank grenade launcher (not on picture) did not fire his 20mm practice ammunition on the infantry... He did that now and then after taking out his primary targets as the Tank silouettes where too easy to hit... The face hit on the rightmost dummy could be that or a sticker... A 7.62 hit would never be that visible after going through paper, unless from very short distance before the bullet has stabilized. On another exercice a moose got out on the live exercise area and him beeing a devoted hunter could not resist the shot. That time the ammunition used was a ballast loaded (concrete filled) 84 mm AT-round. He hit the running moose dead in the middle from 300 meters and it was ripped apart and the two parts ended up 10 meters apart... Out Lt tried to be pissed as firing on animals is strictly forbidden on excercises but he could not keep the smile away Other than that I agree that the instructions are to aim low... The prefect hit is in the upper belly/lower chest. Or rather in the side to only hurt the enemy and get rid of two more attackers taking care of the wounded... /Mazex

Not to mention those dummies are way to big, even for basic training. </font>

I'm in for a sticky too...

Yes, I understand that, but I would like to have it packaged that way from the beginning so that the reviewers get it that way... Otherwise they sure will whine about it and give it an 8.1 instead of a 9.1... Maybe not all of them but fore sure the ones that have never seen the light before

UBL? IIRC, the CIA funded the Afghani local or homegrown fighters through the Pakistan version of the CIA. They bought weapons and supplies in vast quanity for the mujahedeen. The mujahedeen had different leadership, not Usama bin Laden. In short, it's likely at least some small amount of material support from CIA through the Pakistanis got to UBL it would be a great exaggeration to say he was trained by or a creature of CIA. </font>

Ahh, I'm really beeing ignorant here... After reading up on the matter more I remember that the polish did conquer Moscow in 1604... I does not change my statement as they too succeeded

You're so right, but do not forget that the swedes baptized Russia (the name comes from the swedish word Rus, which was the name the swedish Vikings called the people in Russia), so let's walk all the way back Besides, mark my words - I said "tried to conquer" - the mongols succeded )

Ahh, we excel at shooting unarmed paper dummies - thats about the only thing we've shot at for 200 years since loosing Finland to Russia To be a bit serious, from what I've heard the swedish troops that where volonteers in the finnish winter war against russia did fight as good as their finnish brothers, and thats not a bad judgement! About 3 percent of the finnish troops in the winter war where swedish volonteers so they where not just a few brave men that went over the baltic sea... Besides, Sweden is the only country accept France and Germany that has been seriously trying to capture Moscow... Yes, i know it's almost 300 years ago