Lampshade111

I like what I see, but both contenders are certainly quite bigger than the Scimitar. Is the Scorpion still in British Army service, I noticed it is not in CM:SF?

I do question the additional effectiveness of the T-62MV with the gun-launched ATGMs. I imagine the optics and fire control systems quality would limit the potential significantly.

Indeed the AAVP-7A1 should be treated as more of a truck than an IFV or even a Stryker. Park it some 300 meters away if you can if possible look for a hull down position you can park the thing in. That said I would kill for the firepower of the EFV in many scenarios. The fate of that program still remains to be seen however, yet regardless I believe the AAVP-7A1 needs some kind of replacement.

Regarding the M1 Abrams ammo storage layout, IIRC the only difference between the ready rack and "semi-ready" rack is that the ready rack door automatically slides open when the loader hits the switch with his knee. The "semi-ready" rack door has to be slid open by the loader. Indeed the T-72s autoloader ammo carousel itself is tough to hit and most T-72 explosions are caused by ammo stored elsewhere than the autoloader. Yet if you do hit the ammo carousel the results seem pretty devastating. I remember in an old Steel Beasts game you could easily tell when you hit the autoloader ammo storage because the whole turret went flying off! Yet most hits wouldn't have the same brilliant effect.

I have heard both the B-70 and SR-71 stated as the major focus of the Mig-25's development. The truth is probably somewhere in-between.

I remember some site I once had a link too that could actually automatically generate a chart showing penetration info for a particular gun, shell, and target. I will see if I could find it.

The Foxbat had several systems that were EMP proof, but arguably once strategic nuclear warfare had broken out there would be greater concerns among all involved. The radar was indeed very powerful but this did not translate into range, in fact it has a relatively short range compared to the APG-65 on the F-15A. That power is focused on burning through heavy ECM the interceptors might encounter. What second radar are you referring to BTW? The USAF and intelligence agencies believed the Mig-25 to be something it was not. The "hugely expensive" F-15 did indeed have it's origins in the threat the Mig-25 was thought to be, yet it still turned out to be an excellent investment. And remember the Mig-25 primary target, the B-70 never emerged either. As far as the AA-6 goes, it was no doubt a capable missile but keep in mind the US had it's own long range air-to-air missile project in the form of the AIM-47 Falcon which would later be developed into the AIM-54 Phoenix. I disagree with some of your claims. The United States put a significant amount of research into testing hypersonic configurations, in fact I believe the X-15 still holds some records. Indeed the SA-6 was an impressive system and the current SA-17 is probably the most dangerous SAM to fighter sized aircraft that the Russians have. Yet don't think the US completely ignored the field of ramjets. Anti-ship missiles were the Soviet Unions primary weapon against NATO naval forces and this did indeed lead to development of our F-14 interceptor wings, AEGIS, and other systems designed to deal with aircraft like the Tu-22M and hopefully only those missiles that leaked through. The reason the United States did not develop larger supersonic missiles like the Kitchen was not due to technological reasons, but rather other concerns. In a WWIII scenario the Soviets would not need to worry about friendly merchant shipping, allied naval forces, and so forth. Pretty much anything large and floating that wasn't part of their own navy would be a target. Soviet cruisers and bombers would launch their missiles based on information gathered by reconnaissance aircraft using long ranged sensors. For NATO naval forces, much clearer identification would be needed and such long range missiles would be of questionable value. At the ranges NATO attack aircraft or ships would engage Soviet surface forces, the Harpoon and similar designs were enough. That said submarines and airpower would be used to engage Soviet surface forces, rather than our own ships which were focused on ASW and air defense roles. US submarine builders largely choose to use high-strength steel over titanium for submarine construction due to cost concerns. The Alfa was quite an achievement and is in fact faster than most later Soviet submarines. Yet at such high speeds it was very noisy. It's high cost and problems associated with the complexity of the design ensured a small production run despite it's raw performance. Regarding torpedoes the Mk.48 ADCAP and Spearfish are nothing to laugh at, even if they don't have the range of the larger 650mm Soviet torpedoes.The Shkval is a very interesting piece of equipment, but again I believe the reasons the US has never developed a counterpart was due to a lack of requirement. I don't think anybody is trying to imply the Russians are stupid or lousy engineers, they have made many great designs over the years. But like everybody, they like to overstate the performance of their equipment at times. Many people I have met have a relatively negative opinion of Carlos Kopp and think his more recent work is rather questionable. While his views are interesting, I would take what he writes with a grain of salt. I highly doubt the T-50 is designed to outnumber the F-22. The Russians simply just can't afford such numbers at the time, although I would love to see the T-50 provide the incentive for more F-22s.

Did they select the winner of JLTV yet? Anyway newer model HMMWVs (ECV2 series) will be in service for quite some time still, even as JLTVs are rolling off the production line. The old Jeep was in service well after the HMMWV entered production.

I really hope this is the case. Peace through Strength after all. Only 180-ish F-22s is simply not enough for USAF requirements.

Indeed, if the TOWs inside of the M2 go off there won't be too much left, but the BMP-3 has quite worse chances in my opinion. It is the cost of such a degree of firepower. The front of the BMP-3 has decent armor for an IFV, but the Bradley has much better side/rear protection. Unless it is fitted with ERA or an optional armor kit, .50 caliber AP or SLAP ammo can penetrate the sides.

I would KILL for a "cherry-picking" system like in the old Combat Missions. I am sick of setting up a mission just to get a battery of stationary TOW launchers and heavy machine guns which are supposed to somehow go on the offensive. Or when I ask for infantry and get nothing but scout HMMWVs.

I too would love to see a NATO vs USSR/Warsaw Pact version of Combat Mission. Personally I think the "victor" would vary depending on the date of the war and some luck. As per the year of the conflict, the Russians would certainly have a greater advantage before the new generation of NATO armor arrived (Challenger, Leopard 2, Abrams) for example.

I know for Abrams at least there are supposedly two M4s and two M9 Beretta pistols. BF may have just given them all M4s due to the time and animations it would take to model a pistol. I don't know what Bradley crews normally have, but I think they have access to those old M231 firing port weapons. However since they lack sights, fire at 1,200 RPM, and have no semi-automatic mode, the best you could do with one is empty a whole magazine at general direction of the enemy at close range. Consider how many Syrian tank crews are armed with pistols (Makarovs?) in the game, but they appear to be carrying AK-74s that are restricted to semi-automatic.

Just earlier I observed a Challenger 2 survive well over a dozen hits to the front from multiple upgraded T-72s at a range of some 400 meters. For awhile there was nothing but a cloud of smoke and dust where the Challenger was. Everything but the 120mm gun, coax, and .50 was broke. For awhile the battle raged around that tank as the T-72s became focused on engaging my other Challengers. Yet the crew, no doubt in a stunned state and thanking God for being alive, got focused enough to spot and engage another target. They put an APDS round right through one of the final T-72s my forces were dealing with. Without the help of any of those fancy IR optics, and fire control systems.

I hate to bring this back on topic, What is this "half-announced"? NATO module I hear talk of? Does that mean there might be more updates in this game's future? Off topic again, generally I support the Israelis. However recently I encounter a guy rambling on about Mossad being a horribly FUBARed organization run by hardcore leftists who recruit operatives with ideological, political, and religious stances in direct opposition to those of most Israelis. Now I have no clue if this is just the rantings of a madman, but such internal "conflicting prioritizes" must certainly have a negative effect on Israelis handling of their borders and settlements.

Hey thanks for the help but it turns out I don't need it. It turns out the original CD case had broke and the disk was placed in a new case, so after digging through the trash-can for the old jewel case I got it up and working.

Well as a Christmas Gift I got a fresh copy of the British Module for CM:SF. Since I had recently installed Windows 7 I went and installed plain CM:SF, Marine Module, and the British Module. Yet it asked me to authenticate the British module and no license key came with the CD case evidently. I was able to log into the Battlefront Store account used to purchase the game and under order history no license key is listed there either.

Any chance of seeing detailed damage reports upon a hit? Like in the old Combat Missions? Any chance such updates would make there way to CM:SF? Also there are disappearing ERA bricks in CM:SF?

Quick question, can you enable and see shadows in your game without problems? Just curious. If reinstalling fixed this for you I might try the same to see if it fixes any of my problems.

Thank you for the response, out of curiosity is this just an issue with the latest GTX 2xx series or with most Nvidia cards? I am just rather surprised at how little mention there is of these issues (the shadows and white shell casings) if they are common to most Nvidia cards. I understand there may be nothing you guys could do to fix this but is Nvidia aware of these issues relating to CMSF (and possibly CMx2 WWII)?

I got a Nvidia GTX 260 (216) for a good price. Works great in most games, Shock Force seems to hate it however, particularly when it comes to shadows. I don't know for sure but I am imagining that ATI cards work better when it comes to Shock Force. Judging from my rather lacking FPS on my new build rig, you will certainly need a hell of a machine to run large scenarios on max settings.

I think Shock Force really hates Nvidia cards for some reason. My game's performance is below expectations too. It is certainly playable but not nearly as smooth as it should be and gives me a number of video bugs.

I am sure Hamas will be back to firing rockets again in no time, if they are not doing so already. The UN can complain about Israel all they want but for over 50 years now they have done little to fix the problem.

I must say I am not very fond of the AAVs either. The things seem to be a massive explosion on tracks waiting to happen. Enemy RPG gunners also seem a bit too good at hitting the thing. I thought those panels on the side were ERA? I guess that explains my somewhat higher expectations. Wish I had the EFV or whatever eventually replaces the AAVP-7A1.

Typically I turn shadows off, but I decided to enable them yesterday, only to find that when I did, there were no shadows and all infantry on the map vanished. They were still technically there and firing at targets but they were totally invisible and unable to be selected. All crewmen visible in vehicles like HMMWV drivers were also invisible. When I turned shadows off, it went back to normal. Currently my video card is a GTX 260 with the latest drivers from this January. In my control panel I have several options changed trying to get CM:SF to run smoother but none directly related to shadows. I am wondering if this is related to the white shell casing bug I don't have much of an idea. I don't know if this belongs here but I noticed three minor bugs not related to my computer. -When Marines reload their M16A4s the rifle's magazine is out of place. -The model of the M16A4 with M203 was not corrected like the standard M16A4 was. (part of the front end of the assault rifle is missing) -When Marines are sitting in the back of trucks, etc. you can usually see their weapons but it seems some of those weapons like to vanish leaving the Marine holding nothing.