Dietrich

Not that I'm any sort of TACAIR grog, but in addition to the reasons BlackMoria mentioned, the F-22 probably wouldn't be deployed to the hypothetical Syrian war because the USAF already has F-15Cs that can handle the air superiority mission sufficiently well, even aside from the fact that most other USAF/USN fighters are also quite capable in that role.

My two bits (two cents adjusted for inflation): How did the US win? By outproducing its enemies and its allies alike.

In recent playing of a mission from Paper Tiger's "USMC Gung Ho!" campaign, I noticed several instances where fire team leaders were overzealous with their M32 MGLs inside buildings and fragged members of their own squads, even of their own fire teams. Conversely, in the same mission I made sure to keep my M1A1s positioned so that they wouldn't end up fragging Marines in the process of opening fire on just-spotted Syrians in the town. Given the minimum arming distance of launched grenades, wouldn't it make sense to make pixeltruppen use launched grenades (i.e. rifle grenades; but the MGL isn't a rifle, innit? =P) only on targets beyond, say, hand grenade range? Something they'll keep in mind for CMSF2, hopefully.

Indeed — thanks much for the photos, akd.

Almost two minutes earlier, the USMC squad on the left suffered two WIA from the Syrian squad on the right while advancing across a bush-covered field. A minute earlier, the RPG man in said squad scored a turret hit on an Abrams from about 350 meters. Some of the ten or so Marines overwatching from rooftop half a klick away spotted where the RPG came from and fired a Javelin at the building, wrecking the wall. Just seconds after the Marine squad had hustled into the two-story building, the squad leader, Sergeant Roca, took it upon himself to bust into the one-story building and shoot the Syrians still alive therein. Or at least it seemed that the squad leader took it upon himself to rush into the building and clear it solo. I suppose it actually was a glitch that one pixelsoldat from a squad ended up in a building adjacent to the one the squad was ordered to enter. But it's more fun to "dramatize" the on-screen action.

I don't mind the close-range urban use of a FlaK 38, which may not or may seem within the boundaries of plausibility/realistic-ness (depending on how many combat accounts one has read). I do mind the comprehensive and unrealistic non-usage of the multiple MG-34s/MG-42s which the German infantry in that scene were carrying. Of course, in WW2 movies oftentimes the GIs have an unrealistically high proportion of Tommy guns (cf. Miracle at St. Anna, in which most of the main GI protagonists have Tommy guns, rather than, say, one Tommy gun and the rest M1 Garands), whereas the Krauts have an unrealistically high proportion of MP40s yet make relatively little use of their MGs. And in BoB, many of the Easy Company guys' grenades had <1-second fuses. (Or were they just that bad-ass that they often let a grenade cook-off before tossing it in? =P) Whereas in SPR, none of the potato-mashers got cooked off, so they could be thrown back the way they came. And then there's: "It's a whole other company!" "So? They're just charging into the open, and even if they have any MGs they aren't using 'em..."

Yeah, the "Semper Fi, Syria!" campaign has the MEU's HQ riding in an AAVC (which appears in the "Objective Pooh" scenario, at least), but as it's a campagin, we can't open it in the editor to look at all the units. I've started preliminary work on a campaign involving a Marine TF (battalion of infantry, company of AAVs, company of tanks, platoon of combat engineers, full howitzer battery)—basically the muscle of the 2nd MEB—and I figured the TF/battalion HQ would ride in the AAV company's HQ (AAVC) vehicle.

AAV company HQ:

Against an M1A1 or a Challenger 2 or a Leopard 2A6 or even an M2/3A3 (so long as it isn't in the middle of reloading its TOWs), a T-55 is a death trap. Against technicals (except perhaps one with an SPG-9 that's in a position to get off a flank shot) or dismounted insurgents, a T-55 is kick-ass (so long as it isn't crewed by incompetents). Such has been my experience in CMSF, anyway.

Not saying it's among the "best" H2H scenarios, but two words: Lead Express

I've seen pixeltruppen shooting at (or at least in the direction of) friendlies since at least the release of the "Task Force Panther" campaign (which was at least pre-v1.20, since it used SBCT infantry to stand in for paratroopers, rather than the IBCT infantry introduced with the British module). Yet another reason to assign infantry units relatively close cover arcs.

Thanks very much for this, Mord ol' pal. =) I'll probably use this in place of the "all non-hooded" Combatants mod I made and have been using for quite a while.

<good-natured sarcasm> Certainly orders of magnitude more lethal, survivable, maneuverable, and air-mobile than a not-put-together-in-a-junkyard M1126. </good-natured sarcasm>

As it happens, winkelried recently uploaded to the Repository a campaign for CMBN focused on just such a unit (which was part of the 104th ID): 415th Infantry Regiment assaults Lucherberg, Germany.

Except that in the game (according to a quick check in the editor) the German infantry formations — not just the motorized/mechanized, "more important" Panzergrenadier/Panzerpionier formations — have radios down to platoon level, including all the rifle platoons. Or at least pretty much all the platoon HQs in the German infantry formations have a radio icon in the equipment panel. At first I questioned this (despite not being a WW2 battlefield communications grog), but then I deduced it must be some sort of concession to the engine and/or gameplay because (apparently) the other sorts of WW2 battlefield communications (flares, smoke signals, field telephones, et al.) aren't simulated (at least not explicitly). Perhaps Steve, Phil, or a beta tester could elucidate why the German forces in game are more on-par with the Yanks with regard to communications equipment than they apparently were back in Dubya-Dubya Two?

Since the trend seems to be leaning more toward a German-accented English voice mod rather than an actual-German voice mod, I think can whip something up to that effect. Granted, it won't be purpose-made and fully third-party like what YankeeDog has proposed, but the more the merrier, I say. I love

NZSAS are still in A-stan, at least as of late August 2011: The New Zealand Herald – SAS soldier killed in Kabul attack Also (italics mine): Stuff.co.nz – Top medal from US for Kiwi SAS commander Older, but still pertinent: Approval for the acceptance and wear of the United States Navy Presidential Unit Citation for service by the NZ SAS in Afghanistan

Though I agree with you, Vanir, for fun's sake I'm going to play advocatus diaboli a little: They do if the first wrong is done by The Man and the second wrong is done against (or to) The Man. In fact, in that context the second wrong can even be painted as a right. If I were a non-American who disliked Americans and believed that they in general were pretty much the most bigoted, unintelligent, and violent people in the western world, I probably would get a bitterly wry little smile on my face when I heard that 17 SEALs died in a helicopter shootdown just three months after the same unit (though none of the same operators; that'd be almost too much of a coincidence) killed OBL.

One of the "ricochet" voice files in CMx1 was, IIRC, something along the lines of: "Keine Wirkung! Schnell, feuer wiederholen, los!" Which, if my German is at all correct, means something like: "No effect! Quickly, fire again, go!"

A rhetorical question (not in response to any preceding post per se): What if someone hacked into WikiLeaks's database(s) and published everything they found therein? Some anticipated responses: "WikiLeaks isn't a national government that makes money starting totally unjustified wars and killing many thousands of mostly noncombatants, so the comparison is ridiculous." "WikiLeaks doesn't have the sort of secrets a national government has, so exposing of said secrets wouldn't be nearly as detrimental to them." "Publishing WikiLeaks's secrets would put its personnel and ts supporters at risk of persecution, arrest, imprisonment, etc., at the hands of the governments they've angered, so yes, WikiLeaks would have a fully justified basis for protesting said publication." Is it really true that whenever the government doesn't publish something, it's because the publishing of such would expose corruption/human rights abuses/etc., and thus that anything a government keeps secret should be exposed? http://wikileaks.org/IMG/jpg/ja-main.jpg Is WikiLeaks keeping governments open? Has WikiLeaks made governments open in the first place? :confused: To the extent I can discern, it's far too early to tell if WikiLeaks's leaking will be beneficial overall, let alone to the extent its proponents would have others believe.

How about perhaps releasing the Ramadi map itself? I've been thinking that a "vignette from the Ramadi equivalent of Operation Phantom Fury" scenario would be cool; and with your permission, I'd like to try my hand at putting together such a scenario.

The ATGM team was in the building? AFAIK ATGMs can't fire from inside buildings or from balconies, just from rooftops. I'm not surprised that at least some of the ATGM team survived the building's destruction. What's surprising, not to mention frustrating, is that the ATGM itself survived the building's destruction. Then again, if the "fuzzy logic" (if that's the term I mean) can allow for some occupants of a building to survive its collapse, then I suppose the same "fuzzy logic" can allow for some of said occupants's equipment to survive as well. Anyway, I agree that it doesn't make sense that an ATGM team can be in a building that gets leveled and weather the leveling enough that they can then destroy an enemy AFV.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/02/wikileaks-publishes-cache-unredacted-cables

Most-up-to-date, yes, but incorrect. Check the in-game tooltips—US Army riflemen have only M4s. A note from the forum's resident currently-serving 3ID veteran: An interesting bit I read just the other day in Special Operations Forces in Iraq by Leigh Neville (italics mine): Also, see the v1.11 features list:

The two left ammo bars indicate "light" and "medium" ammo respectively. What particular ammo constitutes "light" or "medium" depends on the particular unit. For instance, a US Army rifle squad with M4s and M249s (all 5.56 NATO weapons) will show ammo in the first bar but none in the second. A US Army MMG team with an M240B and a few M4s will show ammo in the first bar and the second, which represents 7.62 NATO. Conversely, a US Army sniper team with an M107 and a few M4s will also show ammo in both bars, but in this case the second ammo bar represents .50 BMG rather than 7.62 NATO. The M4A1 (semi-auto/full-auto) isn't in CMSF, just the M4 (semi-auto/3-round-burst).