Combatintman

Yes they did but the thing needed separate loaders for the charge and the round apparently.

Despite inventing and having numerous examples of the marvellous L7 105mm gun, the L11 120mm gun was fielded with the Chieftain by the British Army from 1968.

Regiment was the command level between battalion and division in tank and motor rifle divisions in Germany in the game era.

The wooden ones I assume ...

Yes the M-113 issue is known, has been logged and identified as a priority fix for the next patch.

It's an in-joke. Back in CMx1 days there was a massive forum debate on whether Bren tripods should be included in the game.

The translation is way off ... Him: 'See anything?' Her: 'No love' Him: 'Are you sure ... we're being fired at ...' Her: 'I can't see sh1t' Him: 'Well something's out there.' Her: 'What do you f*****g think this is - Steel Beasts?'

Well that's the screenshot thing solved ... anybody ready to discuss @CanuckGamer's question?

How different do you think this thread would have gone if you'd run those tests and included them in your original post? A lot of these 'XXXX is broken - fix it Battlefront' threads go the way this one has gone because of the way the original assertions are made. As others have pointed out, and yes it may be a misinterpretation of your intent, your posting history makes people think that your intent with these threads is to further an agenda that there is a Battlefront conspiracy to make the Soviets deliberately weak. This is why I talk about the presentational aspect of your initial post. You may be right about T-72 spotting, but I'll let others who have greater knowledge and like doing these sorts of tests continue the discussion. I will also be pleased if you are right and a fix is applied in a future patch. I personally have not seen much of the T-72 in-game because it wasn't in GSFG at the time and so the stuff that I've produced, which I prefer to bear some resemblance to reality, doesn't have them. I think I tested an early version of MikeyD's Between Two Autobahns which had them but didn't see anything that looked particularly odd because of the ground layout and how I put my plan together. I did not expect the Soviet force to have many opportunities to get eyes on and target me and pleasingly enough that is pretty much what happened. Personally I agree with others that Steel Beasts vs Combat Mission is an apples and pears comparison. Of course there is some common ground in what they're simulating but they are fundamentally different beasts . Steel Beasts I think is probably peerless in its simulation of being an AFV crew member, without the joys of track bashing, getting knocks and bruises from solid bits of metal, living and working under someone's armpit and a heck of a lot of noise, and its sweet spot is AFV vs AFV combat. It does other things less brilliantly.

Ok ... so are those results consistent with what you are seeing in CMCW?

Yes that is what I am suggesting - and when you have done so how do those results compare with the CMCW test? If you are trying to assert that SB models tank engagements between T-72s and M-60s better than CMCW does then I think it is a valid test.

So you don't know ... someone 'guaranteed' something on another thread today that proved to be untrue when they tested it.

How did you do swapping the test around to see how the M-60's AI did in SB?

I guarantee you it will be those benches. Flavour Objects can cause pathfinding issues.

While I don't disagree with the thrust of bits of this post ... how many M1 Abrams did the USMC deploy in Gulf War 1 as your post infers that the USMC deployed that platform? I'll give you a clue ... not overly many ... If that was not one of your points then I apologize; however, relating to the M1 upgunning to something more than that wonderful piece of British engineering (the L7 105mm gun) in the 80s was extremely overdue and I doubt that the factors you mention were paramount in the US decision to do so. The UK ditched the L7 when the Chieftain was fielded ... I may have posted some facts about Chieftains earlier in this thread ...

Changed your policy on stickies then obviously ...

For those affected by this and worried - here's what I had for my evening meal ...

John give it up will you - 'would note that it is extremely dangerous to ...' is just shunting the argument around as is bringing in Soviet aircraft design vs NATO aircraft design. I go back to Suvorov is a big fat fibber and has been proven to be so yet you stubbornly refuse to admit this despite the evidence presented here and elsewhere to the contrary. You lack the same degree of knowledge of BAOR/1 (BR) Corps that I have, having served in both but felt that you were qualified to comment about them and refuse to back down when challenged on it. Your initial assertion about Matsimus being a Cold War veteran was absurd based on the evidence presented - did you even look at how old he looks in his video of a 2011 tour to Afghanistan and think ... too young to have joined the Army in 1989 ... or establish whether 7 Armoured Division was in 1 (BR) Corps ... or compare the relative strengths of 1 (BR) Corps and 3 Shock/Combined Arms Army before talking about mightiness and fear ... Do I have to post the map of Lvov to Bielefeld again? Do I need to give you the details of every single Chieftain that was delivered to the British Army up until the Czechoslovakia invasion in 1968 - because I have them (see image for the 1968 ones) - although that again was a shifting of you argument away from your initial position. Your credentials are the only ones being challenged here ... That alone should tell you something. Or put another way - no-one believes what you are saying in this thread. You're in a hole - stop digging.

Right this is getting silly. Bottom line is that John made a couple of sweeping statements about the Matsimus video. The first was that Matsimus had claimed to be in 7 Armoured Division during the Cold War. That was debunked by @IICptMillerIIand acknowledged by John. I then pointed out various things about BAOR/1 (BR) Corps in relation to comments that John had made which has now resulted in the frame of the debate being shifted around a bit. From my perspective, this is not a personal attack on John, it is an attempt to frame this discussion on the basis of facts. The lesson here is that when you're in hole, you stop digging. That point was reached when @IICptMillerIImade his observation.

Suvorov, as I have pointed out, is not a credible source. With regard to Chieftain, if we subtract the 66 prototype/development tanks issued in 1962 we end up with a figure of 230 in service. According to the UK's own vehicle database, 107 of those were issued in 1964, 86 in 1967 and 37 in 1968. According to a UK Defence Parliamentary debate in 1967 - the 11th Hussars in BAOR had reequipped with Chieftain that year with 17/21 Lancers due to be the next regiment in BAOR to receive it. It is also reported that a significant slice of the 107 issued in 1964 went to training regiments in Bovington and Catterick. So, at best three BAOR Regiments, which in US parlance = three battalions, could conceivably have been Chieftain-equipped by the Czechoslovakia Invasion of 1968 with the third probably having just received Chieftain and thus in the process of working up to a full operational capability in that year. For clarity, the UK Staff Officer's Handbook for 1968 has the tank strength of an armoured regiment as 51 tanks. I doubt very much; therefore, that Chieftain movements featured highly in the Carpathian Military District's collection deck, which as I have already pointed out, would unlikely have had the capability to collect that sort of data in that area. To use tradecraft terminology - 1 (BR) Corps would likely have been, and I'm being generous here, an Area of Intelligence Interest (AII) rather than an Area of Intelligence Responsibility (AOR) for the Carpathian Military District. Now I have no idea what your experience is with collection and collecting in an AII versus an AOR is - my experience is that you focus on your AOR and, if you're lucky, you might have something to cover the AII. In reality - the assets of the organization whose AOR in which 1 (BR) Corps sat (i.e., GSFG) - would provide this information/intelligence. So ... further evidence that Suvorov was a big fat fibber.

Always got to be better eh ...

The sensors covering the Jaguar's left and right sides are a bit 'so last century' though ...

I wonder if all of the German WW2 tanks in perfect running order in tunnels under the parade squares of those camps survived . For those not in the know - this was a common myth bandied around about practically every single sizable barracks that was inherited by the UK from the ... ahem ... former German regime.

Suvorov's writings are at best debatable - in fact Glantz, who is reputable scholar of WW2 is very critical of Suvorov's writings about that war. Others are, albeit less so, critical of his works on the Cold War era. As an intelligence professional I certainly do not assess Suvorov as credible. As to agents of the Carpathian Military District reporting every movement of Chieftains - a quick look at a map has to tell you that this is a dubious claim. Image below shows the distance between the HQ of the Carpathian Military District and HQ 1 (BR) Corps. That sort of data would more likely be tracked by fused IMINT and ground reporting by SOXMIS which reported to GSFG/WGF and not the Carpathian Military District. In the case of the latter, I worked for seven months at the desk in BAOR that monitored SOXMIS touring activity and I'll tell you for free that it could not and did not track 'every movement.'

That does not appear to be the plan and it probably works in the same way that Bohemia's Flashpoint/ARMA are public games while their military derivatives VBS-1, 2 etc are supplied to military customers. I guess we can hold out for some of the features of the Professional version being moved across to the publicly available Battlefront titles but that would probably be on a case-by-case basis.