luderbamsen

The Crusader and the NLOS Cannon are two different weapons systems, this being the NLOS-C. Just FYI

OK, this thing has 300 ripoff written all over it. But hey, limbs hacked off in slow motion and Lucy Lawless nekkid? Yeah, count me in.

Well, the old G11 was dropped ages ago, but low intensity work on caseless munitions continue. There are just too many interesting opportunities in caseless and case telescoped ammo for the boffins to give up on the idea. And historically, major small arms advances have started with the ammunition, from the Mini Ball of the American Civil War to the 7.92mm Kurtz round of the Sturmgewehr 44

My CM status is currenty "inactive", sorry. (I'm also utter **** at it anyway )

In addition to what the others mentioned, barrel length is important when using the 5.56mm round, because muzzle velocity (which relates directly to lethality) depends heavily on barrel length. Much of the criticism of 5.56mm lethality comes from the prolific use of shorter barreled M4 carbines over the full length M16. A common shortcoming of the bullpup design is that it is right hand only: If you fire something like the Steyr or SA80 from the left shoulder, the brass will eject straight into your face. The Steyr can be made left handed by changing a few parts, while the French FA MAS can do so by simply rotating the bolt and switching the cheek pad to the other side (covering the ejection port on one side and exposing it on the other) or so I've heard. While certainly not perfect, the current version of the SA80, the L85A2, is a vastly improved weapon, and generally troops are pleased with it. Some of the problems were due to the design and the bullpup configuration, others were down to horrible management of the whole programme. There's also a round called the 6.5mm Grendel with superior long-range performance. And work is still being done on advanced munitions types: Caseless and case telescoped rounds. Barrett has now moved on to the REC-7: Basically the same weapon, but now with a gas piston system and some minor changes.

Yet another proof that math geeks don't get laid. Ever.

Dude, I was just quoting "House"...

"Everybody lies..."

Indeed. Unreasonable or not Moon, we really do hold BFC to a higher standard than your run-of-the-mill developer/publisher. And you should take that as a compliment.

Clearly, the best tank in WW2 was the M113 Gavin... *dives for cover*

Somehow, I'm not entirely comfortable with sentinent robots being created by the same people who gave us tentacle porn...

Intresting side-note: Julius Rosenberg, an American spying for the Soviet Union, delivered just such a radio proximity fuze to his KGB handler.

Awwww, that's just so darn cute. You'd have to be a complete rat bastard not to acknowledge the salute.

Good stuff, JasonC The fact that US tank production numbers were well over what they could actually get to the battlefield and use makes it even more frustrating (at least in retrospect) that the Sherman was such a crappy tank killer with self-igniting ammo storage. Puts a new spin on the quality vs. quantity thing.

There are plenty of grogs here that can give you the long story, but the short one goes like this: Yes, it's a historical fact. AFAIK, the yellow colour is actually different from the tan colour used in North Africa. Along with the yellow base coat, units were issued red-brown and green paste (to be mixed with water or gasoline) and were then to paint camouflage patterns as they saw fit.

The real tragedy is that eBay bowed to this lone idiot and renamed the yellow star.

I'm pretty sure we've never had this discussion on this forum before. Ever. Anyhoo, the T-34 FTW. No, it was far from perfect, but don't forget the first vehicles rolled off the factory floor in 1940. What tanks were other nations building in 1940? If we ignore such details as cost, ease of maintenance etc. the Panther wins; Good gun, good armour, good mobility.

FWIW, I took that picture for what I presume is exactly what it was: A teaser/screenshot from the next game. It confirms that there will be fields of wild flowers, trees and late production Tigers in the next game. Which isn't exactly shocking news. I do have a question thoug: Not having kept current on CMx2 developments, will it be possible for modders to do "real" reskins this time, i.e. real turret numbers et. al.?

FWIW, I have a hard on for Tigers in general, and late-production Tigers in Normandy in particular.

Oh dear God, let's not go there.

Just to make sure this isn't misunderstood more than it already has been: The Gears of War issue was not, repeat not, DRM-related. It was a bit of bad programming that tied the digital certificate to the games anti-cheat feature. Also, the problem has now been fixed. Link: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/02/mark-rein-gow-issue-caused-by-expired-certificate-not-drm.ars

TBH, this smacks of scaremongering. Now that the Red (i.e. Communist) Menace has evaporated, someone's looking for a new bogeyman to get all riled up about. Seriously, I've read more believeable stories from John Kettler.

Nobody is disputing the fact that climate changes happen (hello? ice age?). But this is about the Human influence on climate change. Based on what we know, it is probable that human activities influence the global climate to some extent. Could be a little, could be alot. But what's really disingenous is claiming that human activity is the cause of global warming as if that was a fact. We just don't know. It could be the global average temperature will continue to rise for decades, caused by CO2 emissions. It could be that this is just a short heat spell before a new ice age. Or something else. We just don't know. And it's not a case of "we don't know with 100% absolute certainty so we should do nothing". It's a case of "we don't have a friggin' clue". Fair enough. I misread your WW2 analogy, apologies. It's still silly though. "Something might happen, we think, maybe, so we should totally do something about it" is a lousy way to run a planet. In fact, your Iraq hint is a better analogy: Drastic action based on dodgy information can have very unfortunate consequences. And, again, there are plenty of perfectly good reasons why we should reduce fossil fuel consumption and invest more in alternative, renewable energy sources. For one thing, people first began to look into solar and wind power in earnest back in the 70's when OPEC got bitchy with oil production and pricing (pardon my gross distortion of history to make a point). Reducing oil dependency made sense then. It still makes sense today. If there is a beneficiary side effect to the global climate, so much the better.

I'm sorry but the cautionary principle is still silly. And you can't equal historical facts and half a century of hindsight with acting upon guesswork. If you must, invading the Soviet Union just in case Stalin was up to no good would make a better analogy. But it's irrelevant. As I noted, there are plenty of perfectly valid reasons to reduce reliance on fossil fuel without resorting to climate disaster scaremongering, based on more wild ass guesses than anything else. For one thing, being less in the pocket of Putin, Chavez, House of Saud and whomever is in charge in Nigeria these days would make a good start.

Man-made global warming is a highly politicized subject, though that doesn't make it any less wrong. Or right. First the facts: Well, there aren't any. There are theories. Objectively, it is very likely that human activity does have some influence on the climate. The big question is how much? Nobody knows. Those who claim they do (whatever side they lean to) either don't have a clue what they're talking about, or are lying through their teeth. The graph that correlates global warming with CO2 emissions makes no more sense than the one that correlates global warming with the number of pirates. Dieseltaylor advocates erring on the side of caution. That is, with all due respect, silly. "Dogs cause cancer in humans. Well, probably not, but the consequences are too dire if we don't err on the side of caution, so we should eradicate dogs from the face of the Earth". That doesn't mean he's wrong about the rest though. Lower emission standards will NOT bankrupt the global economy. Mankind has adjusted to the abolition of slavery (suddenly you had to pay people to pick cotton/harvest sugar canes etc.), industrialisation (massive growth in production) and the massive destruction of two world wars. Surely we can adapt to skimping a bit on fossil fuels and spending some money on alternative energy research. If anything, the secondary benefits (less reliance on fossil fuels, new technologies) would likely outweigh any gains from lower emissions. Which pretty much brings us to the end of the reasonable part of the debate and straight into the politics. As others have noted, the fossil fuels energy industry is only too happy to throw money at anyone with any shred of credibility (and some without) willing to question the prevalent CO2-causes-global-warming sentiment, whether their opinion is based on decades of scientific research or reading tea leaves. Just as how the fast-food industry will support anyone who says eating burgers three times a day doesn't make you fat. But where do the environment movements (for lack of a better term) get their money from? The tooth fairy? No, from contributors. So they need to sell their message too. Why do you think it's called "Climate Change" and not "Global Warming" these days? Because "Climate Change" stir up images of hurricanes, tsunamis, desert storms and a new ice age. "Support our cause! Be afraid of the dangerous, unknown climate change! Think of the children! Give us your wallet! (or credit card number)". In comparison, "Global Warming" sounds a bit lame, attractive even, especially on a cold January day like this. What do you think gets the most contributions? A lengthy, reasoned discourse laying out all the pro/con facts, or shock tactics? It's no different than when wildlife conservation organisations asking for money show you a picture of a sad panda, rather than some discusting poisonous centipede that's probably even more threatened from extinction. They're selling a product just as much as Big Oil is. Now, I'm not saying Al Gore is wrong (I don't know, and neither does anyone else, including himself) or insincere. But one should not be blind to the massive political capital (and a nice bit of personal wealth) his "Inconvenient Truth" [sic] has brought him. Not bad for a failed presidential candidate with a political future in tatters. Same goes for various other less well-known politicians and environmentalists. I guess I'm saying make your own mind up. Your guess is as good as anyone else's. Just don't believe any old crap someone's trying to sell you.