BlackMoria

From the Tank Museum site (www.tankmuseum.org Search on Praying Mantis An experimental machine-gun carrier Praying Mantis was designed by Mr E J Tapp of County Commercial Cars and the original patent dates from 1937. Two prototypes were built of which this is the second. The idea was to create a low profile weapon carrier which could take advantage of natural cover but raise itself up, as necessary, to shoot over walls or other obstacles. Praying Mantis was based upon the engine and tracks of a Universal Carrier but the crew were expected to lie, face down, inside the armoured body which was elevated by hydraulic controls. The vehicle could be driven with the box at any angle although the approved position was with the box raised slightly. The gunner lay to the left of the driver and operated the twin Bren guns in the rotating 'helmet' above his head. This box also contained a small grapnel. In practice it was extremely difficult to operate. The driving controls were not at all positive and the whole thing bounced so much it could make the crew seasick. The project was abandoned in 1944 and is now regarded as something of a joke. Even so Tapp's idea of a weapon system that could elevate in this way is now commonly employed in guided weapon vehicles. Maximum elevation 11.5ft (3.48m). Vehicle could be manoeuvred into a concealed position. The control chamber raised and the MGs fired without disclosing its position. Only experimental vehicles were produced.

Interesting video clip. Did anyone else notice how the 'main characters' all had that Saddam look, complete with cheesy mustache?

It's not the equipment that makes the army, it's what they do with it. While the Iranian weapon inventory might make it look like a good stomping ground for a game, the tactics used by Iran during the Iran - Iraq war was almost WWI vintage. Human wave attacks. Radicalized recruits 'volunteering' to clear minefields by running through them. The question is, what are their tactics now? They didn't evolve them much over the 8 year slugfest they has with Iraq and I suspect they haven't updated them much except to decide to fight an insurgent battle because a straight up fight with western powers wouldn't go well for them. And any lesson learned by Iraq didn't serve them well in the first and second Gulf Wars, where they got their asses handed to them in a decisive fashion. I suspect Iran would fair even worse in a similar matchup. Leadership based on ideology rather than tactical / operational schooling and savvy isn't going to win them many battles.

Military armored vehicles don't have keys (at least all the ones I have rode in) usually for the very reason that losing the keys make for an ineffective vehicle. Starting the vehicle is flipping some switches and pushing the starter button. Securing the vehicle is usually locking the hatches and / or chaining the steering wheel or assembly.

Sounds intense. I just finished SNAFU tonight so I look forward to Dancing in Damascus. For SNAFU, it was a cake walk after the T-90s. Being an ex-Artillery / FAC officer, once my airpower and artillery arrived, it was all over for the poor Syrians. I never had to go forward of the ambush site since my airpower and artillery strikes from my observer I got on the mountain rained steel death on the Syrians and I got a Total US Victory with my only losses being 18 KIA and 12 WIA and no vehicle casualties (though my lead M1 platoon was nearly combat ineffective due to damage equipment like optics, machine guns, thermal sights, etc). They took a hell of a beating but survival is the only thing that matters.

My experience is that if the vehicle isn't part of the squad or crew immediate command hierarchy, you can't enter or use the vehicle. That may be case here. Odd that troops from one platoon can't do anything with another platoon's vehicles, not even hitch a ride. I hope that this gets changed at some point.

As stated, either the settings of your modem is blocking ports and you need to open them or your ISP is doing port blocking at their end and you need to talk with them.

Yes, it is the Marine campaign. Afternoon Delight is a good scenario in it own right but the victory conditions are totally unreasonable and it left a bad taste in my mouth for the game to tell me that I had a total defeat despite destroying the enemy in entirety, occupying all objectives and only have 3 WIA (an accomplishment in itself). I was floored by the outcome. The Syrian side got 2000 pts for inflicting casualties and it seems that 3 WIA crossed that threshold, which tells me absolutely no casualties is the only way to get a win. Then straight into SNAFU, where it seems that luck rather than tactical acumen is the principal determination of how big you will win or lose, due to reinforcements arriving within seconds of each other and in full view of each other. Get lucky and most of your force survives. Get unlucky and expect about 1/3 to 1/2 of your forces to be wiped out in short order. I suspect the designer was going for a 'Blackhawk Down' feel for intensity on this one but it is going to be frustrating for players because your reinforcements arrive and are in the fight for their lives before they can do anything other than pop smoke and hope for the best. SNAFU has the potential to be a great scenario if the reinforcement schedule was better staged. As it is, the enjoyment and therefore the merit of the scenario will be largely determined by how the reinforcements' forced confrontations play out. If you have few casualties, you will most likely like the scenario, if you have heavy casualties you will hate it. Not because of taking heavy casualties but because so many choices are taken out of your hands since you have no say on where and when the reinforcements arrive and the action being instanteous without you exercising any tactical choice or planning other than drop smoke and pray.

Then call me 'Baldy' Edit: Thomm, does it get better in the campaign after this? I've been enjoying the campaign up until the end of Afternoon Delight when I got a defeat despite occupying the chemical factory complex completely, destroying all enemy forces on map and having only 3 WIA for my losses. Is that one winnable at all? SNAFU seems like it is heading the same direction. Unrealistic or unachievable victory conditions. Afternoon Delight and SNAFU seem, well.... a let down after some previously great missions.

Thank god. If another armored blitz appeared out of nowhere, I would scream and yank my hair out. My outcome seems to be un-typical so far based on what I am reading. It seem the scenario design is meant for reinforcing forces to mix it up from the get go and medium to heavy casualties to occur. Then to make it so that your surviving force has to completely eliminate the enemy is really harsh and is just rubbing salt in the wounds. I understand people's frustration and don't understand why some think it is a great scenario. I look forward to this one being over.

I'm in SNAFU right now. My usual caution in advancing inadvertently positioned my tanks in a good position to counter the first counterattack, which I totally didn't expect (I was oriented as I was expecting threats out of the first urban area but the hull down positions were ideally oriented to confront the first counterattack). The AAV platoon had scooted along the low ground and shield by arty smoke in open areas and were behind the fort when the wave showed up, thank god. When the first wave showed up exactly when the AAV reinforcements showed up in the exposed area, my response after the obligatory holy ****! expletive was, who the hell designed this scenario so that opposing forces reinforcements, showed up simultaneously in full view of each other. Fortune was with me. The enemy counterattack focused on my hull down tanks and not on the exposed light armor in full view on the map edge. The attacking wave was annihilated with one of my M1s being mobility killed (don't know how since it was hull down, near as I can tell) and degraded optics on two others. After dealing with an infantry attack towards the fort, I was repositioning my M1s to resume the advance and starting to get my infantry back into AAVs at the fort when my second group of armored reinforcements arrived. Absolutely paranoid after the enemy showed up at the same time reinforcement arrived last time, I popped smoke on each second vehicle of the column of reinforcements (gamist, but I really hated that first ugly surprise). Within 10 seconds, the T-90s showed up. Once again, fortune had smiled on me because the repositioning of the lead M1s to head out again had put them in semi-hull down postitions to the T-90s and the smoke screens were effective on the reinforcement column. The AAV reinforcements was in mid move to join up with the others but fortunately was in low ground out of observation of the T-90s. The first shots of the T-90s of ATGMs either missed my lead M1s or were directed at the partially smoked screened armored column and all missed. A short and violent firefight later, the T-90s went down with no losses to me. That is where I am right now. I understand Thomm's frustration totally. I have only 1 mobility killed M1 right now but if it wasn't that fortune smiled upon me twice so far, the results could have been a whole lot of blue vehicles burning. Having reinforcements for both sides appear within seconds of each other and in full view of each other is harsh and not a design choice I would consider doing for a scenario. Now I even more cautious for resuming the advance because what other nasty surprises are getting to be sprung upon me and yet I am on the clock to reach the ambushed scout platoon and clear the gorge. Fortunately, the scouts withdrew in good order without losses and are hunkered down and using the air and artillery to good effect to maintain their security while they await the main body to get to them.

I just finished playing Afternoon Delight and the victory conditions at totally bogus. My losses: 3 WIA Syrian losses: 113 KIA, 62 WIA, 9 MIA, 5 Tanks, 1 Other. At the end, during the Review, there wasn't a single red unit left on map. I got a US Total Defeat. Red got 2000 pts for having my 3 guys going to the dispensary after the battle. Totally bogus.

It seems a graphical driver issue. Are you using the most up to date drivers? If so, check the graphical settings in game. Something might be enabled that is causing the issues. I would suggest playing with the settings.

This is a large amount of research on differences between males and females and the differences is more than difference sex organs. At the fundamental level, the male and female brain differ in metrics like logic, emotion, empathy, reasoning, aggression, etc. There is a ton of written material about so anyone can check it out. Society values make it too simplistic an answer. Expose a child to a new experience like a never before seen toy or show and male children gravitate to certain experiences and female children gravitate to different experiences. Society values is one aspect but brain differences (as I stated above) is a bigger determinor than social values. Ah, but the issue here is a computer game vs real life. Certainly, no one except the purdish are going to complain about girls in binkinis playing volleyball in real life. Now, make a computer game about it and ensure the binkinis are 'scanty' and it is not the sport of volleyball the game designer is advocating as the main design goal, is it? Otherwise, the girls would be fully dressed in more appropriate apparel for a volleyball court. And if the game as a social interaction aspect, guess how the girls are usually protrayed in the game.... you guessed it - bimbos. Hence my comments. It is a commentary about how women are portrayed in male dominated computer games.

It is social somewhat. The other part is genetic differences between males and females. Boys grow up watching shows like GI Joe, Transformers, Thundercats, etc. What are these shows about.... at the core, they are about conflict resolution through violence. Girls grow up watching Care Bears, My Little Pony, Hannah Montana, etc. What are these shows about.... at the core, social interaction with the occasional conflict resolved through non-violent means. Interesting that my niece, who liked GI Joe, Transformers and Ninja Turtles gowing up also enjoys FPS games, World of Warcraft and the occasional wargame. My other nieces who grew up with My Little Pony and Barbies don't like these game but things like the Sims, etc. Which explains why I prefer CM Shock Force to a bimbo beach volleyball game. Business before pleasure....

Shalom Welcome to the boards.

The Canadian Forces in Afghanistan use a handheld Thermal Imager called TigerEye but they are expensive and not widespread and I don't know how they are distributed out. Thermal Imagers can discern a difference to 1/10 of a degree Celcius, if I recall correctly, so they are still effective in hot weather. The chief drawback is range - with handheld units being good out to a kilometer or less. Which means they are useful if you have static position and you are wanting to see approaching hostiles. Less so if you are in the attack (handheld doesn't necessarily small and light) and even less so if you are trying to do survelliance over a large area. Afghanistan is just too big and spreadout for effective survelliance. Taliban dead have been found with current generation nightvision equipment on them, so the poppy money means they can afford to get the best, so they are likely using their night vision devices to avoid Nato troops. It is no longer the case that western forces 'own the night'.

Odd that. My helos have always used missiles on vehicles except for one occasion in which the helo used guns on a BTR, which is appropiate since it is light armor. When I played Streets of Hamas, the helo missile killed two T-90s. Did you use Area or Point Target when sending the helos in?

Spoken for truth. I am reminded on my time in the Canadian military when during one night deployment, the brigade recce platoon drove across the front of my gun postion four times before someone from the platoon approached my position and wanted to know where the hell they were and how to get to location X. I got them where they wanted to get to, but it was so damn funny the sheepish look on the platoon commander's face when I told him he passed by my position four times. They were driving around in a big circle around me most of the night and they had no ideas they were literally going in circles....

Yes, but from a CMSF game point of view, completely irrelevant, unless the programmers have it so you have to log in and pay a small amount of money to play a scenario or your contractor pixeltruppen do nothing during that scenario. Let's not give them any ideas like that....

At it core, what is the difference between a squad of soldiers and military security contractors beside the uniform and who the boss is? The weapons and vehicles perhaps... but is a special armored SUV much different than a Hummer from a game point other than visually. Are contractors armed with Steyr AUGs and wearing body armor and helmets really any different than US soldiers with M4s, aside from the visuals. From a game viewpoint, nothing really - therefore, they really don't add anything to the game per se that can't be done by creative modding or what not. But the original poster does hit on a salient point - what is the face of warfare going to be in 2018? The Future Combat Systems may be fielded in that time but how widespread will NLOS-C and NLOS-LS systems be? I expect some special brigades but I suspect that the most US military units will still be using current equipment with usual enhancement mods that the next ten years brings. The big jump in the next 10 years, outside of FCS, will be in the increased use of sensors and robotics. What affect will this have on the future battlefield, I don't know. UAVs are being used now but is it translating to more victory in the field? From a game issue, is knowing where everything is (a consequence of having UAVs) a game breaker because is makes asymetrical warfare even more lopsided in blue's favor?

Good to hear. Thank you for the info.

I don't know. In the scenario previous to the Road to Shin, Village Run, I had my full complement of 3 LAVs for my scouts. At the scenario end, I had no vehicle casualties (in fact the outcome was only 6 WIAs for that scenario). Village Run lead to Road to Shin. I start the scenario with my three scout squads but only 2 scout LAVs I am assuming the scout platoon is one of the 'core' units which progresses through the campaign. I can't explain why the scout LAV disappeared. Is mechanical breakdown a possibility? I also thought that maybe something was up with the CAAT platoon as well as only two CAAT vehicles & crews showed up for Road to Shin but in the next scenario, all CAAT vehicles & crews are accounted for, but the scout platoon is still short a LAV.

Don't know if this is a bug or not. I'm playing the marine campaign. I have not lost any vehicles (amazing but true). At the start of Road to Shin, one of my scout squads didn't have a vehicle to squeeze into. It is also annoying as hell that despite having opening in other vehicles outside the scout platoon, I can't mount the scouts up in one of the AAVs. So this scout squad walked up the mountain and to the exit area, taking the whole time to do so. They did nothing but walk but I came up aces for the win on that one so do no biggie that they humped the boonies and did no fighting. On to Debouch to Disaster - the scout squad is on foot again. And the back objective is a long, long way off. Sigh... Who jacked my ride? As I stated, I have lost no vehicles earlier, including no mobility kills. Yet, it seems that the locals in the start village of Road to Shin made off with one of my LAVs, the bastards. Any ideas what is happening here? Are these scouts going to end up walking all the way to Damascas?

I got CM Shockforce with Marines just before Xmas and I really love the game. Excuse me if they was already discussed but I can't find it in the forums if it was bought up. One of the wonderful things about artillery is the ability to register or record a fired target for re-engagement. If hostiles show up on the registered target area, you can call for fire without going though the adjustment procedure again. I realize that there is probably a good reason (coding or how to implement the feature) registering targets isn't in the game but, hey, one can hope right? So, any chance of registered targets in a future patch?