Secondbrooks

Steve: I was about to eraze that part of post which you quoted as too flaming, should have done that. But i think my main point stands (=the part you didn't quote). Yes i'm biased because i see these as very important aspects, unlike some other tweaks.

Yair Iny: My main point is that we are playing version 1.21 when Syrians (being elite and in every other way the best) can get their rounds on target in 5 minutes. Still in 1.20 it has taken closer to 10 minutes. As a side note regular US team leader without any gadgets or theral training gets his company's mortars on target as fast as Elite Syrian FO in 1.21. Needless to say that in 1.20 and before US team leaders, heck even lowest kind of grunts are much faster. Anyone seeing anything odd in this? Anyways to 5 minutes part. I'm not expert on FO stuff, but with general "wisdom" i'm having i dare to make few points on that list: 1. They should probably already know their location (finger on map while moving, at halt pinpointing location). Target is different thing, it can be easy, it can be hard based on terrain etc. 2. Haven't ever sent fire mission requests, but basic structure of it doesn't seem to be too hard if one has been well trained for it. 3. They should already know their location. It shouldn't be hard to pin point target's location from map (from area in which they are expected to fire anyways) if they get proper coordinations from FO. 4. True. But point is that Elite FO and Elite Mortar gets into spotting round part in about 4 minutes. If someone has more info and experience please do speak out.

This post is rant about how BFC seems to correct their flaws in game. On TRPs. Yeah. Enough has been said. Oh yeah. Syrian commanders finally can access to indirect fire assents. Yahoo. From start Syrian indirect in every level has been laughably slow, i'm having 1.20 at the moment and how long it takes for organic 81mm mortars to fire for effect if firemission has been called by regular FO, in contact with CO? It takes 10 freaking minutes. It has been like that and even worse right from start and CMSF isn't most new game anymore. Thing seems to have improved by 1.21, but is there really a good reason why this has taken for so long? I just don't get the ideology that flaws in US side gets corrected very fast (sure they are fast to prove flawed unlike Syrians). But for Syrians it takes time to correct anything quite important (rule of thumb seems to be about year)... if things are corrected ever. EDIT: Damn! 1.21 patch improved just organic response times. Rest of stuff seems to go along old lines. My experiences with new delay times goes with Bigduke6. While SF company is having Elite experience for everyone (mortar, FO included), +2 in everything, excellent equipment, gave 5 minutes response times for organic company 82mm mortars, when FO had contact with CO... I can somewhat understand long delays with divisional&regimental assents but Syrians simply can't be this slow with company mortars?!

Smoke. All i'm saying. Cleared that hospital complex map in CM:SF with Strykers smoking and smoke drifting into compound in wind. Whole main part of complex was filled with smoke so i calmly walked my men into different parts of building (right thru Syrians ) and waited for smoke to lift. aprox 1:2 ratio and better training took care of stuff with almost zero casualties. Peace of cake. You may call me the Tactician. Well there has been few patches since that...

I'd take a educated guess... Not being educated and poor at guessing, i'm rather aware of results. But man can try, can't it? Well it's besically same thing what men with small pen1ses says: "it's not about size but about skills and dedication". Men with large pen1ses ofcourse sees it differently. Blasted idiots. Same with smaller nations looking at their population base, budget, size of military and compare it to their estimated effect on things and draw their conclusions from there. Gee we sent 200 troops on that place which is close to absolute maximum we can. Troops worked nearly flawlessly. We are main contributors, cheers! From Large Military's point of view it doesn't count a ****e.

I like it that if i happen to command something like battalion i just can select couple of my platoons and order them to assault that section of town [in direction of my hand] while i concentrate on something really important like how my sniper is positioned. Can't do that in smaller than company fights. No-no.

Well isn't it old joke that guys in Vietnam moving in choppers sat on helmet to protect the most precious ones. And trenches needing to be atleast waist high :confused:

Panzerfaust 3 probably. If they haven't invented new one, in that case i'd take guess that it is... ummm... Panzerfaust 4

Well lets just say that as good old russo-phobic i havent' forgot them But due same reason and because i'm not very smart person, i didn't count them into list. Pandur: I admit i don't know who exactly are "whoring" and who are not, and by that word i'm not meaning that they are fighting wars of US, but general presence in for example Africa and various hotspots in world, and that is seen as military's main priority for which it needs to reform it self. Nice to hear that there are other who haven't done that. Hopefully there are more similar examples of which i haven't been aware of.

Back on issue with ww2-generation, and how they were so tough when they carried their uber 4kg rifles. Managed to gain my hands on genuine ww2-material from one of the famous LRRP-guys. His cellphone (personal belonging, not used in communicating with HQ) was found just last year from Murmansk-railtrack, packed into minigrip-packing. Steering car (which has lost it's brakes and is, apparently, going rocky downhill) back to topic at hand... Or atleast almost: Steiner14's post gave me something to think about. I don't know does it hold true also for Germany. What is current progress in Europe at the moment with it's military? Yes. Operations on global scale are getting more attention, more resources, more dedication. Conscripts getting tossed out and professional troops taken into their place, because they suit better for such use. I've heard rumors that this is taking large effects on actual defending capabilities of militaries. Amount of units, weapons, men are shrinking by large. I've even heard that that progress has it's effect on teachings and focus of military academies also. Even to degree that defending home-land is in very minor part of education program, while global stuff is taking unhealthily big amount of time and focus... Sounds pretty harsh, and i personally believe it isn't true, but still not missing it's mark completely... And is somewhat unpleasant thing to think of. I've heard speculations that pretty much only nations which military's main goal is not "whoring" on global scale are Finland, Greece and Switzerland. They do send their units to places but they don't dedicate too much resources on it. I admit that i base this mostly on vague impressions i've having about it. So my knowledge with this issue might be pretty much from arse. But it's pretty interesting thing. ... Wasn't this hot topic in Nato few years ago?

They. Were. Too. Far. Away.

Yeah. Like i said in ambush situation we probably would have been killed Besides i'm not girly man, i can live years playing XboX and eating chips and pizza. One month i lived with cocroaches and flies which wandered near my coach as nobody charged my cellphone's battery, heartless bastards. My manboobs are far from girly. Tell me name of the man who did that pre-ww2. You can't, can you?! I knew it.

We carried heavy assault rifles as well and man i can tell you that if there would have been ambush... Well let's just say that reaction times when it comes to shooting wouldn't have been "optimal". Some guys stucked their rifles behind their back somewhere in middle of starps. Well it was on training when worst thing usually was just foul but rich language heard from superiors I've noticed that my father, when he held my shotgun first time, was right when he said that it's too heavy for moving hunting. As it is. So it ends up carried in most comfortable ways at the end of day, which are not same ways which allows one to shoot escaping prey (like upland birds) as fast as possible. On still hunting it's good thou. So yeah i can understand why G36 might be bit big and bulky.

By realism you'd mean that attacker calls it break while they get something which is enough to destroy or severly damage that bunker? That would be the CMSF way. :cool: (and not very far off it seems) Interesting question from original poster. Hard to say-hard to say. Must give it more thought.

Yup. That is the one. Doesn't seem to be SPG-9.

Brainz not functioning, again. So: Or could be that it's just couldn't ease backblast's pressure (=something like dirt in way). So it had much more recoil than normally.

I've seen video where similar equipment breaks something in gunner's head when fired from shoulder. Yup, barrel kinda flied few meters backwards after knocking gunner down. I'm not sure was it SPG-9 or that 107mm version of it. Could be something else as well, but i got impression that it was another of those two.

Wasn't this more problem with Waffen-SS because their "lead by example" and even reckless fighting spirit at it's early years before practice proved that it has it's bad sides, which are high casualties. Heer was more into "lead by management", which Waffen-SS started to adopt as well. Well to my understandment ww2 in general was "war of young officer cadre", which (along NCOs) suffered relatively large casualties. But Waffen-SS at it's early time in east was specifically exposed to casualties among low-level leaders. Chad Harrison: Now don't you start to distract him!

I'd personally would take so catchy and clever sentence with grain of salt, but who knows maybe he really ment it as admitting that they indeed feel/know that they lost all battles against US.

I'm not much expert on Vietnam, but did NVA too feel that they lost them all? Or infact did they see that they won most of them? Atleast i've noticed this tendency when studying how both sides saw results of battles. Both sides can be happy for results, get decoration or at least save their (officer's) honor. And one can get decorations if he writes good stories how he destroyed (=enemy casualties never confirmed) battallion (=platoon) of enemy with handful of men (=company) in desperate defense-battle (=enemy was probing)

Problem the way i've read about it (which is somewhat) is that you need to have disciplined troops which's officers understands value of training. Discipline because other ways there will be rebellion when men (battle-hardened veterans) don't get change to just sleep, eat and fart, but they have to freaking train. And training needs to be underlined, bolded, quoted in red color and written with big font for superiors to understand it's worth. When that is established even week used in training seemed to have great effects for cohesion and performance of the new guys. Some units, which had possibility and mind-set for it, did that even at times when they needed to be ready to counterattack. I just wonder did Germans really be able to maintain their system where you had units withdrawn and getting replacement and train with them. As most book i've read abotu german soldiers seems to state that they spent long times in front lines, men were starting to break down mentally (over 60 days in front is what brings these drawbacks if i recall), even at start of campaign in east when things basically should have been okay. Somehow i get feeling that we discuss about Germans we easily take examples from how things worked at best, which means armored divisions and such. Units which spent lots of time out side contact to enemy. Infantry Divisions may have had similar replacement policy in the end as US had, when you get replacements sent them to front as soon as possible, because there wasn't much options to do it differently. Unit wasn't going to come behind from front lines in a long time. Sure fundamently things are different, atleast Germans tried to pullback units behind sooner and were aware of the existing problem, but in practice things generally went quite simillary. Infact i'm rather sure that Mannstein told to Hitler that replacements for infantry regiments don't get soon enough into their units, but understrenght troops are thrown into battle and then they get replacements in middle of the battle. Higher casualties as result.

I'd guess it was. They couldn't muster enough men to fill ranks even during longer lull moments. During -44 for statics what i've read they already were short of manpower by 20-30% at least in divisional level at the point major campaigns were launched. JonS: Soviets needed just 4 years. And they fought all those 4 years. We had to fight soviets for 5 years and loose two wars against them. After that we got wiser and decided to choose easier one. Germans I'm just trying to be funny and probably failing at it. No wishing to harm anyone's feelings.

Tripod in CMSF is so-called "frog"-tripod (which is black(-ish)), which by my knowledge is general tripod usable for NSV (maybe also DSHK/KORD?), AGS-17 and PKM. Atleast our AGS-17 (R.I.P) was on frog.

Taistelu Viipurista 20.6.1944 Written by Uuno Tarkki, Captain at the time and was witnessing all that sh!te hitting the fan. He have written another (older) book about it, Miksi menetimme viipurin, but he stated that new evidence had emerged after that which required him to write new book about it.

Not related to Normandy, or western front in general but as i'm whipping myself with book concerning lost "battle" of Vyborg in -44. Few things springs to my mind. German warning and descriptions of large scale Soviet offenses and what tricks worked in defense almost totally ignored. Placement of Antitank guns. Which were found out already in 1939 but by many already forgotten. Again some very basic things already known had to be re-learned by blood, lost land and loosing vital equipment. Those top secret military-secrets concerning Panzerfaust and Panzerscherck which lead to fact that when Soviets launched full scale assault almost no-one knew how to operate them, there's stories of men using fausts like pile-up-charges... Yeah, throwing them at tanks. Soviet tankers probably knew that weapon better than troops who were supposed to use them. First shipment of weapons i believe was around -43, so there was time to at least organize some kind training-organization (well there was something, usually insufficient). At least they could have printed enough user-manuals in Finnish. When units started to re-train for combat (which had time and opportunity for it) they did ofcourse refresh their skills, but at same time depleted most their ammo and hand grenades... And didn't get resupply, couple tens of rounds per rifle at max. Ammo depot responsible to supply unit fighting in Vyborg hadn't adjusted to hot war's reality but worked on stiff static trench warfare bureaucracy, and static trench warfare's mind set. Tankers not telling to their commanders what kind tanks they were using. Those BT-42 tanks ment for indirect fire, but named as assault guns. Yeah they were sent to fight against KVs and T-34s, commanders naively thinking that they as capable at that task as they were, after all, assault guns. To name few things. So there's lots of potential for unexpected or overlooked aspects in military fairs. I'd guess figuring out something of which one doesn't have much first hand experience is even harder.