Vark

Interesting, were the half track hit in the engine or the side? One would think an engine block enough to stop it going through all three, and a side hit just a hole to patch up and perhaps some infantry to scrape up as well!

Unless you are the IRS, then Stasi-like behaviour is completely acceptable! As for the internet, that racism and hatred was always there, it's just on display now, for all to see. Before then, you'd have to go to a play, movie or wait till the alcohol, at a social event began to have an effect, to experience humanity with little moral restraint.

I think until the mid eighties, NATO could not rely on conventional weapons to hold the line. Trouble is BF have said no to any Cold War scenarios, so perhaps it might be franchised off, so that all those Cold War warrior gamers can recreate the nightmare they avoided. Personally I'd spend twice as much for a CW set of games, than a contrived 'future' scenario, but I'd be in a minority I think. I can also dream of an AI conflict pact, but again that would have to be franchised out. Still I can dream of MRR's and RAG's and SPAAGS and AG's, oh my!

Iraq and Iran had similar problems common to Islamic armies, poor training, poor leadership, and difficulty in maintaining equipment (Iran's situation was worse in this regard, due to embargoes on military supplies and withdrawal of US advisors). Both armies had been ruthlessly purged, so leadership and consequently command and control was poor. Critically, the Iranians had to contend with the wholly artificial tension between the army and the revolutionary forces. The Iraqi's did not out perform the Iranians in the war, what they did have was a definite quantitative advantage, 12 divisions to 6 (some merely brigade formations) with a third more armour. When it came to the respective air forces, the disparity was even more marked, with the Iranian F-14's, F-4's and 5's lacking in critical components and beginning to run out of spares. In spite of all these advantages, a year after the limited Iraqi invasion, the Iranians had inflicted a series of devastating operational blows and sent Iraq reeling and suing for peace. They had thrown out the Iraqis a year later and then made the same mistake as the Iraqis attacking fortified defensive lines. Even then, the Iraqis could only stabilise the line using WMD's and deploying their overwhelming air force, and armoured forces. Worse for the Iranians was the reaction of the outside world, and soon Iraq's logistical shortcomings were counter-balanced with France and the USSR supplying so much equipment, on credit, the MSR's were full of low loaders 24 hours a day. So far from out performing the Iranians the Iraqis won by out gunning them, backed by Western credit. If the pre-Saddam Iraqis had tackled the pre-revolution Iranians, the Iraqi's would have been defending the suburbs of Bagdad, in pretty short order. In 1991 the Iraqi army had only a rudimentary understanding of the tactics needed, as it had barely mastered the ability to defeat anyone who they did not massively outnumber or used WW1 tactics. As for Grozny and Fallujah, Russian crushed the resistance, the US retreated from Iraq, sorry voluntarily withdrew, like the Soviets from Afghanistan in 89. As I said, operationally the Soviets do better than their tactical performance might suggest, alas CM models the tactical environment. Secondly, I don't think the performance of an army with uninterrupted logistics and air superiority, massively out-numbering a small group of rag-tag insurgents can be used to adequately predict the results of a full spectrum clash, with little, if any numerical superiority. Anyway, Grozny is not Fallujah, by any stretch of the imagination, though both sides relied on massive amounts of artillery and air support to achieve their aims. The trouble with comparing tactics, is the interested party will always claim theirs is more effective. Western counter-insurgency tactics are second to none and there is a body of expertise that runs through their armies which is priceless. Trouble is, with your SOP honed to call in air support/artillery to deal with most tactical problems, how are you going to react when they are not there, or in significantly reduced numbers? Worse, how will your soldiers perform when they encounter similar weapon systems being trained on them? The definite training/technological edge the West has should see them through, but as Wodin so aptly said, don't underestimate your opponent.

What happens when Lebanon gets sucked in, as the emboldened and victorious Sunnis take revenge for Hezbollah's intervention? This is what happens when you pussyfoot around with a regime like Iran, it throws down the gauntlet, at its time and choosing, forcing the US to scramble around to maintain a semblance of influence, in the region.

The Iraqi Army had been fighting a WWI style conflict for 10 years, it came up against a force who had assiduously trained for a full spectrum Cold war conflict, for 40+ years. It was a tribal Army, with religious divisions, made up from an artificial state created after WW1, with limited experience of modern military technology, versus a Western civilisation with a history of large-scale mechanised warfare, using indigenously created weapons and tactics. Arab armies suffer from history, not bravery or resourcefulness, their critical limitations in logistics, massive inconsistency in troop training, quality and morale are painfully exposed by Western forces. Jordan, is perhaps the best Arab Army and although it gave a good account of itself, it was still defeated by the IDF. As for examples, they are tenuous at best, as the forces in 1991 and 2003 and fighting the recent insurgencies have had luxuries that I doubt would exist in a 1st world clash. Not to say that the Russians would win, the Wests industrial strength would virtually guarantee that, but they'd loose battles, which makes a CM2 conflict more appealing than, 'destroy a Syrian Mech brigade, but try not to loose more than 10% of your force', scenarios.

I'd be very dubious about equating the current Western combat experience of LIC's, and a rapid take down of a threadbare conventional force, with that of a modern 'full spectrum' conflict. As for Arab armies I never thought Sadat bought start of the art Soviet equipment to tackle internal dissent. Arab armies are made up of tribal structures fighting for largely artificial constructs, using rapidly learned tactics and technology, historically not a good combination.

Who will we support, when AQ turn on the FSA?

Firstly games like CM, that focus on the tactical environment, do not play to Russian military strengths, especially true in CMBB. The Russians destroyed the Germans because of Operational parity and strategic superiority, whilst being poor tactically. I'm sure BF will reflect this with a backstory of cyber attacks, maskirovka, pre-emptive strikes and a rapid deployment of fast moving Russian OMG type units, made up of the top units, not a 58th Army. For a good primer on the curates egg nature of Russian forces in 2008 this is quite good. http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/09spring/mcdermott.pdf As for the Syrians providing similar opposition dream on. The Russians would prove to be a pretty nasty opponent, 91 and 2003 required massive build ups of force and equally massive mobilisation times. With the last UK and US armoured units departing from Germany, just where are the Allied heavy units going to come from? Cue scenarios where airborne and SBCT's fight the heavy Russian kit, buying time for reinforcements. The story might have a US armoured brigade on a goodwill tour, or joint exercise with Ukraine when everything kicks off. As for China, it does not buy much Russian equipment because the majority of the PLA's deployed equipment is ripped off from Russia, a practice started during the Cold War. As for fighting abilities they have historically been less than spectacular and have none of the operation experience the Russians have of large scale armoured warfare, history, even old history counts. The Chinese navy is the most sophisticated of the armed services as it is anticipated that it will bear the burden of any meaningful force projection, if any of the historical maritime disagreements end up in a shooting war. Far more worrying is the fact that BF predicted conflict in Syria, what do they know about the Ukraine that we don't?

Highly effective, in a trained operators hands, able to lob objects with surprising accuracy, all without a tell tale report of muzzle flash.

Interesting piece about the dangers for Hezbollah, of becoming allied to Assad. https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentaryanalysis/hezbollahs-vietnam

Schmoly, I remember reading in 'First Clash', one of the first things the Canadian defenders did was remove all obstructing signage. Impressive hole blown through it though!

I tried! http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=1546

I think some posters might want to emulate GaJ's haplachromistic trait.

Why the heck is the M-10 commander not standing higher up, when unbuttoned?

Are they also called quantum Quislings? Good article on Hezbollah's woes, especially the danger to Lebanese security. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139430/mona-yacoubian/hezbollahs-gamble-in-syria

Aha, thanks Apocal, makes sense, though at what sage stage does a turncoat become somebody who sees the writing on the wall?

Simple really, to point out the gross hypocrisy that most exercise over matters Israeli and Arab. Secondly, to reinforce my point about Iran's mistake in ordering its proxy, Hezbollah, to get involved in the Syrian Civil war, for the reasons perfectly summarised by Zebulon. Yeah, do realise Hezbollah are on the SAA side, meant to sat FSA, sorry. Are you saying that the Arabs are less civilised than the Israelis? Careful, in the UK that could be regarded as hate speech and have you investigated by the police!

Interesting, why no AT guns?

Hezbollah worse than the Jews! Gosh these Arabs really hate other Arabs! http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/world/middleeast/syria-developments.html?_r=0 Good to see the Iranian plans going awry, for once.

Ok, really wish BF produced a guide to the rules, for CM2, especially detailing spotting.

Is GaJ using cover arcs? I've noticed that giving a unit a cover arc, seems to radically improve chances of spotting.

No, all Ranger weapons crews must be heavily myopic and pass the, lose your coke-bottle lensed glasses at the most inopportune time test. Not shown in GaJ's AAR is the tragi-comic scene of the Bazooka man miming that he just stepped on his glasses, to the increasingly frustrated commander. Where is tube-guy when you need him most? Seriously, there seems to be bug about spotting stationary vehicles, wonder why?

Don't also forget TI can be used, in the daytime and conditions of reduced visibility, to help locate what would have been previously 'invisible' troops in concealed positions. http://www.opticsplanet.com/thermal-imaging-vs-night-vision.html Don't also forget the widespread use of laser indicators like the this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/PEQ-2 Though it's 'invisibility' has been compromised by cheap digital cameras which can detect the beams.

Why then were not all the soldiers faces blanked, especially the guy finishing off the obviously wounded rebel? On a side note, imagine if a MAG wielding IDF trooper was filmed killing a wounded member of Hamas or Hezbollah? Nice videos you watch Augusto, I tend to steer away from those ones, gazing into the abyss and all that.