Vark

Surely if you said no LOS determination beyond this line, for deployment and no LOS beyond the foremost unit. it would be quite easy. The deployment zones stop you going beyond the boundaries, why not the source of LOS determination? Bill might make a map, but that does not mean he has carefully scrutinised each AP to see what he could see from there. My objection is pretty simple, why are you able, during deployment, to see what the defender sees? After action accounts are littered with instances of attackers failing to appreciate the exact lie of the land until it is too late. If the defender had time, he should always have an advantage, as he will be able to walk the ground, before planning his defence, noting areas of dead ground, possible defilades and key hole positions. Would be nice if eventually you were allowed observation from any deployed unit, then have to use a map graphic to work out what was on the 'other side of the hill'.

You can use the magnification function, but yes, the still quite crude terrain (compared to RL) does limit the intuitive understanding of the lie of the land. I still balk at the ability of an attacker to be able to view behind ridges, to see what the defender can see, totally unrealistic. "Remember, Gunter, 22m past the crest there is a nice piece of defilade which allows you to keyhole to hill 122 and cover the first 50m of the road." "But, Sir. Our patrols only went out at dawn and did not get over the ridge, how do you know what is exactly over there?" "Ah, Gunter... magic. Now as I was saying, when you want to move from the defilade, stay 20m to the left of the undergrowth, if you move any closer, a defender in the first farmhouse might see you." Gunter, eyes wide, shakes his head in amazement, once again his commander has earned his nickname, 'The all-seeing one'.

From the angle of the Jgpz IV its commander could not spot the AT gun, the gunner has a narrow field of view so seems a bit odd, given it has cover behind it. Numerous combat references to AT suggest they only became visible after they fired, due to size and ability to conceal. Surely a half-way competent crew, could have cut some branches from the nearby bushes and bound grass into bundles, to attach to the gun shield, to break up its sharp angles? If they had been in position for some hours the AT gun commander could have checked visibility from a potential enemies POV. I think it raises another question about just how much topographical info the attacker should have. Surely there should be a forward edge that the attacker cannot be allowed across, like deployment zones, to check out LOS, in the deployment phase? If the defender has been there sometime there should be no such limitations, as it represents a thorough survey, before defensive positions are considered. At the moment the attacker can be alerted to every fold in the ground, dead zone etc, when he would really only be looking at general directions, via sometimes very basic maps. Professional analysts, like Bill, can meticulously pick apart any defence, often knowing exact areas of full and partial defilade by being able to unrealistically view a defenders field of view.

Always liked this photo, it's a Hornisse crewman but the guns the same as the Elephant, and gives you an idea of the power of the 88 L71. http://www.ww2incolor.com/german-armor/Hornisse-3.html

Are you keeping the Elephant close to road for fear of bogging? Or is that chance irrespective of the particular vehicles characteristics?

Surely it becomes a Kubel Kolander! No eyes on must be very frustrating, not like the good old CM 1 days, where the telepathic sharpshooter, well forward of the defences, would destroy any carefully coordinated attack using covered approaches. Captain Wurtmann touches his hand to his forehead and gazes into the middle distance "What's that Sgt Shaufenberger, ten T-34's and a two companies of infantry, moving behind the ridge 800m away, are forming up to attack the left flank'.

Agree, both those operations were against more vulnerable structures, though Orchard stretched the IAF's capabilities considerably, but the intent is clear to see. They cannot allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, and that window is slowly closing, when it is, military solutions become redundant. I only watched part of the debate I linked, but it was interesting to note the first Israeli speaker mentioned the 'existential threat' such weapons posed. That is the point, hence my reference to the Wests solipsistic foreign policy, the Iranians never need to use them, directly, for them to have a huge impact on Israel. Saying they must accept the reality is pointless, a delay, however slight, to our self-interested perceptions, could mean saving the country to them. Good article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21768360

I'm well aware of the difference between Persians and Arabs, talking to Iranians makes that distinction perfectly clear. In fact it's why the Arabs are waiting for action, they fear a nuclear Iran, and its why the Iranians want it, to once more be the regional superpower. Iran, although not Arab, exploits their unwillingness to face the consequences of their self-inflicted nakba and seeks to position itself as the scourge of Israel, hence the rhetoric directed about 'her ceasing to exist'. The Israelis, and Jews as a whole, have been treated unjustly, period, all through history. What is remarkable, is that they have accepted and internalised this fact (running through the Torah is constant realisation of this injustice) to drive themselves forward, not lurk in the comfort of perpetual 'victim'. Again, unless you have lived in that country, it's hard to explain, the never again comment reflected a feeling which always lurked below the surface, and drove people forward. I would find it hard to reconcile those experiences in Israel with a belief they would just become supine because or the Wests perception of real politik. We in the West, especially politically, tend to be quite solipsistic, and this is one of those moments, I fear. As for ME fixer, its interests seem to remarkably coincide with that of the Wests, stopping regional nuclear proliferation recently and being an essential intel conduit during the Cold War and GWT. My original soubriquet was wet boy, which would have been more accurate than fixer, as that has wider political connotations, again, I think recent history bears me out. If you are quoting US policy from open sources, and I notice the classic word 'secret' meaning both sides wanted it revealed then it's not official US policy as understood by those who made it. If the US attacked Iran it would have no separation from the event, no political cover to hide behind and look what direct intervention, in the ME, did to the US recently. Plausible deniability is the phrase I think. To the Israelis, delaying the programme intermittently will stop the programme in the long term. The financial cost of continuing to try to continue the programme, whilst absorbing the additional costs of repair, will eventually cause that revolution so indirectly they might. The regimes hold on power is not as strong as some would like to think, or choose to believe, and the failed opportunity to give moral support to the 'Green Revolution', was a missed opportunity, a bargaining chip that turned out to be a dud. As for the inevitable nuclear Iran, ask Iraq and Syria about that inevitability.

If I was to say to my son, don't worry, a casual observer might infer that my son was worried about something and I was offering reassurance. Hence the question, why do you need to reassure me? Do you think I have a personal connection to Israel? I don't, just worked their for under a year. Though having worked with both Arabs and Israelis I see why Israel used to be included in the Eurovision song contest, it has little to do with the ME, which is part of the problem. I'd have though whipping boy and ME fixer was historically self-evident, and perhaps why the US supports her politically and financially, unless you subscribe to other more traditional reasons. As for provably false statements regarding US policy that is only true if those public statements reflect the reality of the situation, and from my understandings of foreign policy that often is not the case. Though in the US case her policy goals are so unrealistic, given the lack of engagement and effort spent in the region, one wonders if they do have a specific policy, other than a Micawberish hope. If that is true, a two to three year delay of Iran's project, crippling of Hamas and defanging of Hezbollah, where Israel takes the flak, might seem quite tempting. If you have the time, this debate might help. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/can-israel-live-with-a-nuclear-iran.premium-1.495432 Bottom line, Israel will act the way she historically always has done, her armed forces are just an extension of that society. The conflict with Iran is, as the article said, just a continuation of the War of Independence, where the Arabs have not come to terms with their disastrous decision to attack Israel in 48. Because of that I cannot see how they will accept Iranian nukes. I might be wrong, but I still don't see it myself, as it would be the death of any hope of her surviving long term.

You did say that, but I can understand why you are a bit confused here, because in each exchange your argument has, how shall I say, ‘evolved’. I think that’s the most charitable description I can use. You also seem to struggle with the definition of the term, refute. Quoting from the article “When asked if the IDF has the capabilities to attack Iran alone, Gantz answered “unequivocally, yes. The Iranian challenge is a meaningful one. We must look at it strategically long-term. 1-2 years is not long-term, so yes it does refute your argument somewhat. Genuinely curious, what did you mean by this? Why should I be worried?

The Secret Service agents can probably lay their hands on the the para version of the 249 in their vehicles, but I thought they used MP's, M4's and P90's when doing close protection. Then again Obama's knowledge of guns is a little weak, still good quote, which illustrates the paradox at the heart of government. You can never get back to real life when President, but sometimes you need that emersion in normality to be the most effective.

It's one of the things that really impressed me about CMSF, the delay in sight and sound.

By chance I have the first screen shot of the CM-Pacific module http://prints.encore-editions.com/0/500/america-artist-art-paintings-prints-note-cards-by-n-c-wyeth-marines-landing-on-the-beach-1944-approximate-original-size-42x30.jpg

And what would that do for this man legacy? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-will-not-stand-back-and-allow-iran-to-build-nuclear-weapon-says-barack-obama-8535714.html As we have seen yesterday he does not like anyone saying no to him! More importantly, US assurances of security would be weakened, and that would lead to greater global instability. One nuclear strike on a major population centre, would threaten the viability of Israel, period. Hit Tel Aviv and 16% of the total population would be killed or injured, and given 40% of the Israelis live in the centre of the country one can see the magnitude of destruction. Or a 50 KT warhead (the top end of their computer simulations, according to the IAEA) would completely destroy the major port of Haifa, kill 15% of the population, devastate most of her heavy industry and reduce by half any importation capability. Land one on Haifa, Ashdod and Eilat and you have wiped out her international seaports, and ability to import critical supplies. EMP effects of a high altitude detonation would rapidly bring chaos to a nation with an ever-increasing high-tech infrastructure and be devastating in combination with ground and air-burst detonations. Israel does not see herself as Outremer, destined to survive for a limited period before falling to her enemies, her security, hostage to the mercurial political realities of Western politics. It's why she is investing so much in oil and gas exploration, and gas fields like the Leviathan help her gain that independence and prepare for the day the cheques stop coming! She is not going to risk that independent future to US guarantees that promise retaliation, in the supposedly rare event of Iran nuking her!

Ah, the ad hominem reference, the internet equivalent of hollering for air support when your perimeter has collapsed. Perhaps ad hominem fallacy might be more accurate, in this case. Oh, and here's its bed fellow, straw man argument, what straw man argument? Responses to previous points, are not straw man arguments. Never claimed to be a military expert, so don't really know what you are getting at, ventilation shafts are a weakness in fortified structures, historical fact. As for your personal attitude you have given me quite a lot of information, sorry if I used it. Exhibit a) your honour "don't worry the checks are still being written" A phrase so loaded with traditional historical slurs I really find it hard to believe it was just a 'turn of phrase'. As for experts, he might know a thing or two http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Yaalon-Israel-may-have-to-defend-itself-from-Iran-alone-309988 Oh, and comparisons between Israel and NK are somewhat strained, the more the US put pressure on Israel the more the country will unite, the more united, the greater the pressure on its politicians to act.

Ah, you mean shuffle off to the ghetto because we know what best for them? I'm guessing here, but I don't think you know many Israeli's do you? Try ordering them around and telling them they have no choice, ever hear of the scorpion and the frog? As for the cheques being written comment, I think you reveal a bit too much about your personal attitude there. You might want to check up on all the help Israel provided to the US, during the Cold War, some of it described as ' priceless'. Still we pay them to buy our weapons so those Jews should just toe the line, embrace reality and forget that silly emotional 'never again thing eh? Just curious, but can you find me an Israeli statesmen/women who has said publically that an nuclear Iran is an acceptable situation? Perhaps you will have better luck than me. By the way if you build anything underground it needs good ventilation, especially if it is deep underground. those air shafts have to be of a considerable size. You cannot hide them, and they cannot be too far from the facility, so find them block them and drop large amounts of rubble onto the exits and entrances. As the Bam earthquake proved, the Iranian engineering and emergency infrastructure is pitiful and outdated. If you wanted to be nasty sow the rubble with sub-munitions to delay or prevent rescue. Lots of ways to skin a centrifuge, as they say!

Read about operation Mikado, and how many times have we heard that Israel cannot do something, has no chance, only for it to do so. Sorry, lived their just under a year*, the Israelis will not tolerate an existential threat to their nation, they will not accept Iranian nukes which seem to be stubbornly resisting the jaw jaw, delay, hope strategy. Maybe more unicorn dust is needed! So Israel will not tolerate Iranian nuclear weapons, and they are not going away, solution? Who said anything about Mossad suicide teams? They have a perfectly good launch vehicle in the Jericho II B and the Iranians have conveniently built some into mountain sides (close to fault lines by the way). You could entomb them, block their air supply and kill everyone inside with Co2 poisoning. It's what the Russians did, albeit on a far smaller scale, with Afghan mountain complexes. Either that or they kill every scientist on the project they can track, again the Gerald Bull strategy. * that was in the Eighties, talking to Israelis now they seem to have become more nationalistic and right-wing (due to immigration from Eastern Europe).

Yes we are, and yes they do, don't be naïve. We are delaying any response knowing in the end, the country most threatened by Iranian nukes will take action. If the SAS planned a suicide mission to take out Super Etendards and Exocet ASM's what will the Israelis do when the future of their nation is threatened? Though a nuclear warhead detonated underground would do the job nicely. No Israeli PM will tolerate Iranian nukes, we know that, they know that, most sane Iranians know that. We are dithering over Syria because we know that the country that will suffer the greatest from Jihadists gaining WMD's, will take action to stop that eventuality, Gerald Vincent Bull ring a bell? He was only the designer of an outlandish weapon, what do you think they will do to any Jihadist group who overrun Syrian WMD's ? Israel, whipping boy, and ME fixer all in one.

In the real world no 251 gunner is going to duel with a quad 50 that can punch through his flimsy gun shield and half-track like soggy cardboard. unless of course he wants to die, or live the rest of his days as a multiple amputee! One 50 cal is bad enough but FOUR! FOUR! All aimed at you, firing API!!! He was only using one 50 cal.

Of course they could just let Israel clean up the mess, oops what do we have here! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22195508 Publically kick them around about settlements, disrespect their leader but hope they deal with Iran and Syria. You get your mess sorted out and they get the blame, win win.

Don't forget bone and teeth fragments make lethal secondary weapons!

Thought the rearmost AA LMG was used as the second squad LMG in Pzgr units? I don't see why a shield was added if the gunner is not expected to sometimes engage targets. I think Bills tactic of using it as a support weapon to cover advancing dismounts, whilst the 251 is hull down, replicates the modern M113's tactics very well, and tell the Israelis that lightly armoured APC's are just battle taxis! CM does not simulate troops breaking when attacked by armour, irrespective of any casualties caused, a major hindrance in any simulation of armoured warfare. Have a company of 251's covering their assaulting infantry who are attacking a platoon of green troops and see what happens in real life, even if they have AT assets to support them. CM is a theoretical simulation, not reality, you cannot transpose tactics directly from the virtual battlefield to the place of real fear, confusion and crucially real lives on the line.

Yeah, maybe that leading from behind and ignoring the growing radical Islamic takeover of the resistance wasn't such a good demonstration of 'smart power' after all! The strategy now is to let the the good, the bad and the ugly dog fight it out help the good dog, with non-lethal aid ( doggie-bix, bandages and canine body armour) but no claw or teeth enhancement, hoping a solution will turn up. Iran Iraq redux, just with a more amateurish production team this time around.

Reminds me of the washed out image you get, when you gaze at the ground, after you have been looking into the sky, hand held up to block the summer sun. Trouble is, the colour soon returns in real life. Maybe in between the two options would be better, as the stock colours are two garish, and the movie lighting too faded.

Sound is not original, as the image of the shell impacts and guns firing coincides exactly with the sound, there would be a delay surely? The 88 might be powerful, but very vulnerable to artillery fire, fancy trundling along in an Sdkfz 7 and spend 10 minutes limbering it up, under fire!