Lampshade111

I hope you guys are not purposely delaying it to get more people to but the Marine Module.

I am looking foward to picking this up soon. Yet reviewing the patch notes I am going to miss the strafing runs and regular bombloads from my F-15Es, F-16Cs, and FA-18Cs. Anyway we could get these back in limited form? After awhile Syria would not longer be a "high threat" environment for pilots. Also the name of several of these missions implies water. Is water actually represented somehow in the game?

Are the ground mounted M2s in Marines the original M2HB or the improved M2E2?

I know the Marines currently use mostly up-armored HMMWVs (M1114, M1121, M1151, M1152, and so on) but the manual mentions the M1046 and the previous section part implies the similar M1043 or M1044 are also in the game. So does this mean we have unarmored HMMWVs too? *Note that the M1043/44 and M1045/46 have some very limited armor, which is only there to prevent spalling, and protects some areas from small shell fragments.

I think your numbers are wrong there (it was closer to what it was in Vietnam.) However those numbers are not what it takes to kill an enemy (they would be literally torn to shreds), and most of that number is not even direct fire. The vast majority of that ammunition is used to suppress at rather long ranges.

John Kettler, I believe Russian knowledge regarding our FLIR systems during the 1980s was somewhat limited. I also believe that thermal blocking smoke screens were introduced rather late during the Cold War. Indeed Russian artillery would have made life hell for everybody, but most certainly ATGM gunners and infantry. Yet hordes of Russian guns were always a major threat and a shift to more mobile TOW launchers helped to deal with this to an extent. As far as T-55s with Drodz leading an attack, ideally the tanks could be directed to hit these while the TOW gunners waited for the next line of armor. Drodz was not horribly reliable anyway.

Depends on the vehicle to some extent. I believe each Abrams crewman has a M9 Beretta but having some M4 carbines stored is pretty much standard. I imagine Bradley crewmen all have a M231 firing port weapon.

I would honestly just rather go back to the system in the original Combat Mission games. I don't know how this one was supposed to be better.

Yeah both the M16A2 and M16A4 have single shot and three round burst. The M16A1 (a few might still be in service) and the M16A3 have full auto.

The Javelin is certainly a very capable ATGM. I would not want to run into an enemy with those in any MBT. In regards to the video of a T-72 being hit by a Javelin, yeah it had C4 in it but that was supposed to represent the full load of ammunition and fuel going off. I get really tired of people shouting "fake" everytime they see that one.

I don't believe the Marine Corp plans on replacing all of their M249s, and I think this may be a good idea for some squads in a platoon or two of the fireteams in each squad. Yet I believe they should only go ahead with this if they get a reliable high capacity magazine. The current Beta C-Mag is not it.

Quit a shame CM:SF will never get water even now that we have amtracks, but I can understand why. As long as we can get some by CM:SF 2. Quick somebody go on a thirst strike and perhaps they will change their mind!

The plan is that 10 years from now, classic systems like the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley will still be around in upgraded form, but "Future Combat Systems" brigades will use the manned vehicles built for the program. I imagine we could see a new few designs based off of spare Abrams hulls as well. All of this could easily change however based on funding and how well or how poorly the program does. Seeing how Battlefront won't be working on Shock Force 2 for awhile I imagine that by the time they start there will be enough info about the FCS manned vehicles and possibly the T-95 to model them rather realistically. If more accurate information is released later they could always be adjusted in patches too. A near future game can still be a simulation in my mind. It would be a fantasy game if they modeled the T-95 and such before nobody had seen the thing as is the case now. Regarding what is classified I am sure some things are hidden from us, especially in regards to stealth systems, aircraft, and energy weaponry.

A good friend of mine works at a company that produces laser warning system for the U.S. military. Besides setting off a warning the system shows what direction the laser is coming from. He has never said what vehicles use this system but he says they are built to work on helicopters, tanks, and all sorts of things. I would imagine the latest M1A2 SEP include these and possibly the M1A1HC SA. There are smoke screens that can block both lasers and thermal imagers and I believe the T-90A uses such smoke grenades. To my knowledge the U.S. Army current does not use these, part of the reason being that it works both ways, meaning the tank can't see either. I once read the British use laser blocking smoke however. The countermeasures setup on the Future Combat Systems manned vehicles may include laser and thermal blocking smoke grenades as well as the planned soft and hard kill active protection systems. In my opinion systems like Shorta are great for dealing with older missiles yet against newer designs, especially top attack missiles like the Javelin they won't do much good. I am uncertain if they still do but the USMC used to use the Missile Countermeasure Device (either the Sanders VLQ-8A or Loral VLQ-6) on their M1A1 Abrams. The Army also tested these systems during and after the first Gulf War. Battlefront Steve you mentioned LOSAT was cancelled but actually the program lives on to an extent in form of the C-KEM.

Yes, lets see how the Germans like having the tables turned when they come up against an M1A2 SEP Abrams.

No offense to anybody here but the Serbians really love seriously overstating their kills. The biggest thing they did was get very lucky and manage to shoot down that F-117A. Meaning that way too many fools are still saying how "stealth is worthless." Is was a matter of luck, poor planning, and the help of some infrared or night vision systems.

The Marines have less money to work with than the Army and several of their programs such as the EFV have not been well managed. It has been delayed way too long and in my opinion they focused too much on getting a high swimming speed. (However, I still want to see it in CM:SF someday.) Overall the Marine Corp is a more infantry focused force, their armor is mainly in a supporting role. They use their amtracks and trucks more as battle taxis, while the Army operates it's Bradleys and Strykers much closer with the infantry whenever possible. The Marine Corp choose to primarily use M16A4s rather than M4A1s and generally their infantry is very well armed. The Marines biggest lacking is probably in vehicles. For example the Army has better Abrams, the EFV keeps getting delayed and could be better designed, and the Marines don't yet have the same level of digital communication and control the Army does. However they have been working on getting new/better trucks and HMMWVs, modernizing their Abrams, and eventually there is supposed to be a replacement for their LAVs. Their air capabilities have also been improved with the AH-1Z, UH-1Y, and V-22A.

Nice, we will see Challenger 2s with different armor kits? That one has the ERA on the lower front hull and additional side armor but a new kit is due to enter service soon.

Perhaps for CMSF 2, (if we actually see the T-95 by then) but I want to see the U.S. Army's FCS manned vehicles too.

Good, let it be known that we are not afraid to hunt down those Taliban and Al Qaeda filth in Pakistan. Their corrupt government was not doing the job. No need for the heavy armor, but we should let our special forces and infantry units go after them with air and artillery support.

I doubt anything lower than .50 caliber or 12.7mm AP would do the trick. But it may take a few hits. "M1A1 can barely stand a 100mm sabot at 1500m." I don't know where you heard that but I think your wrong there. What type of 100mm sabot ammo? Hell the M60A1 Patton could handle 100mm AP/APDS hits.

Like I said, the export tanks were not really "downgraded" and were rather just older models with older ammunition than what the Russians were using at the time. Production quality might have been slightly lower but besides for that the designs for the export tanks were pretty similar to one of the Russian models. Fire control systems on the basic T-72/A/M/M1 was quite poor compared to the T-80 and T-64. Only with the T-72B/S and post Cold War upgrades (like some T-72M1s in the game) did this improve. As for the Javelin hitting that T-72 in that video, yeah it was probably packed with explosives but only to simulate the effects of the full load ammunition and fuel going off. This does not always happen right away however (or at all if no fires are started.) Yet when it does it looks something like that.

Okay, I will try to get you a save game and my specs. I am upgrading this winter however so I hope that will clear some of the issues up.

Probably was a pain to find somewhat accurate information about the armor levels.

In my opinion the original game (before the current patches) was pretty lousy. It ran much worse than it should have on most computers, it often crashed, and was very buggy. However the patches have done a great job fixing things. Not all of the bugs and problems are gone but things have certainly improved and will hopefully continue to do so. I just wish I could get rid of the bug where units teleport around the map, and the occasional random crash. I always have to restart my comp before I play or else these issues happen to me.