lomir

Unfortunately, CM:SF doesn't model in a realist way how to blaze a trail through a minefield Combat engineers is a subject which Battlefront should have to retake, and probably they will do, at some point. In game engineers only carry demolition charges to open breaches in walls or to blow up an enemy bunker, but IIRC for nothing else. And yes, they can slowly make a safe trail by probing, but the only way to mark the buried minefield (not surface laid in the game) and start probing, is by triggering one of its mines :eek:, something that I have to sadly say that it's something totally insane if you have to do it on purpose - I think there is at least one or two scenarios were it is supposed that you should make recon on the minefields in that way. In that situation it always comes to my mind "where the hell are those monkeys when they are more needed?" (no offense to the "refresh monkeys"...). But as I have pointed out, it isn't modelled a fast way to blaze a trail under combat conditions using mine-clearing line charges or an Anti-personnel Obstacle Breaching System, not to say there isn't in the game a vehicle fitted with some kind of mine-breaching device. So, Apocal, if by "good minefield breaching" you mean "realist minefield breaching", no, because unfortunately it's not possible to replicate yet. But if you are looking for an scenario with extensive minefields in the area-denial role, surely there are and I'll be posting soon in the repository the first scenario of the campaign I'm making, where you'll have to do an armoured assault across the border with some ugly minefields to avoid

Joe, please, calm down. You are throwing a tantrum with all this and it's not constructive stuff anymore, man. Already, three different threads ago, you could read this: That's totally fair for me: they apologized for any "fault" they could have done with the advertisement and they will try to make it better next time. Joe, to err is human, nobody is perfect, and to write that proves they really care a lot about us, their customers. Some of us that we asked for the hard copy we had expectations, of course, specially after getting the stunning Marines module with DVD style box and manual, but please, don't make a world out of it. Today I got my mail copy of British Forces and I tell you: I'm as happy as a boy in Christmas Day. Because for me, more than covers and manuals (and still some of us really enjoy to refer to a nicely printed manual, not digital media), at the end the main point is the game/module itself. And that's a very well done work. For refunds and such things, there is a customer service to help you. Here in the forum, now you are just venting your anger with no purpose, Joe, because all the points have been already said, and more than once. It may be time to start enjoying the game

No We use an Spanish-made copy of the good old U.S. CVC helmet from Carbondale (PA). Yes, the original ones that saw some action in Vietnam with our M113s They are tough ones, but they don't use ballistic kevlar, so we always change to the 'Marte' combat helmet when out of the vehicle. Although the Leopard 2 tankers use the same German helmet model - they don't use to put their feet on the ground, so no combat helmet to worry of.

The XO should be totally deaf on the ground with that CVC helmet

Well, lesson learnt and probably Battlefront has taken note of what kind of purchasing trends might be likely to happen on the future release of the NATO module unless they will put some effort to sell copies by mail. My case: I place my order on July, 30. I pay an extra $20.00 for shipping and I'm still waiting to get it. I imagine that it should be here next week as long as other Europeans are already getting it on the last days, but that's more than one month waiting for... the same product for $20.00 less. No whining, but I feel quite like an idiot with this Yes, I was also too eager to buy the British Forces module to understand that "Hardgoods - consisting of a CD" just means that you'll only get a CD and please do not expect anything else. My fault. But I have to agree with other forum members here that the DVD-case image is rather misleading. The superb appearance of the previous Marines module along with the manual made the rest, creating expectations. I don't know if it is really worthy for Battlefront to sell hard copies, what margin of benefits they get, etc. but I wouldn't mind to pay in the future the extra $20.00 for a product like the CM:SF Marines module. For what we are getting now, definitely not, Sir. Cheers, Lomir

IMHO it looks perfectly like some version of the BTR-80 K1Sh1 (GAZ-59032) command post vehicle. Notice the bigger hull than the usual BTR-80(GAZ-5903). A picture of a BTR-80 in the GAZ-59032 baseline:

Mmm... "ATGM Ambush"... that was a very cheeky one: I didn't know where to completely hide the Bradleys to avoid all those incoming shells and missiles Preybyemail, don't get pissed off, man Look, I'm new here and not part of the "fanboy patrol", but I understand that it's not easy to get you when you start a thread stating that "you have made the lamest, one sided war game in history", "what in the world were you thinking BFC?" or "I've tried every scenario I have that has a blue A.I. plan, to try and learn how to utilize the pathetic Syrian Army and after countless hours and missions have come to the conclusion that this game is a lame duck" between some of the best pearls of wisdom. Of course it's a great thing to be able to have this forum here for our write-ups, but you also might try afterwards to write any positive ideas of how the game could be improved within some feasible limits, not just launching a fierce attack on the game, the map makers and everyone involved around the project. I may wish that my car could jump over obstacles, but it's not just a reason to post in an opinion column of a newspaper that "they have made the lamest car in motor history", right? So, yup, I agree that the Syria has a crappy backwater army, but that's what they really have. Why then making games about the Middle East? Maybe because it has happened in reality (Irak) or it's a plausible setting for a modern war (Syria). I think the game models perfectly the asymmetric warfare of nowaday's conflicts and you can't expect something different without being unrealistic. And that's why many of us we like it. Yes, they could have made a game about a Soviet invasion of Western Europe but then that would be a completely different game of what you have on your hands. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Understanding this, you have to understand that in a modern asymmetric war the Western nations will never get chewed as you would like it. But in real life to get 2 KIA and 2 WIA on a patrol due to an IED is a "Red" tactical victory. To destroy an Abrams tank is by itself another victory for them. And they are still having heavy casualties. But because the cultural background, we can't afford to loose a single man abroad and they can do it. You are thinking as a Westerner when you want to win battles crushing the "Blue" forces, and of course, then you'll get dissapointed. You are expecting that the Syrian soldiers have the same training and equipment than the US/British, and definitely they do not. You can't expect that the Syrian militias are a kind of Navy SEALs, ambushing, kicking fast and hard and then dissapearing in the matter of seconds. In reality it's more likely that they'll be shooting without any precision at the limit of the enemy's weapons range, or even further away to avoid what you say: being mowed down in one and a half seconds. My piece of advice: take it easy with the Syrians. It possible to win battles with them, but to believe they can easily chew up the "Blue" forces is like believing Saddam words when he said all that stuff about the Mother of all Battles, blah, blah...

I would ask for a blaster rifle with a lightsaber as back up With a 6.5 mm Grendel weapon you were going to have a serious headache looking for some spare ammunition, Dietrich, as that cartridge is as rare to find in military logistics as hell My apologies in advance because I don't want to make fun of it (just kidding a little) but I think that is a very uncommon choice

It seems that the MG4 was initially known as the MG43 prior to its adoption by the Bundeswehr. I didn't know that myself. Yup, sounds like a kind of marketing thingy, although you won't be able to buy any of these from your closest retail shop here in old Europe and the potential military customers don't choose just because fancy names. But it might be as well that the shorter name helps for a faster saying: "Where is this f***ing MG4?! bring it here NOW, you ars****e!!" Elmar, they are German but still two different designers/manufacturers (Rheinmetall and Heckler & Koch). But it could be that they have reached an agreement on the naming for easier designation conventions as long as it's very likely that we won't see any further modification on the MG3 as it just works perfect as it is and that Rheinmetall will produce the German Puma IFV (to replace the veteran Marder IFVs). Guess the secondary armament: a coaxially mounted 5.56 mm H&K MG4. New beast-the last version in

Some politicians here think so... cough, cough... Sweet Lord! I think I'm getting a cold...

Uhm... and the video just shows a test done by a H&K technician, probably to measure the barrel wear and so on. You can't expect such a vicious automatic fire unless you have the "bad guys" really on top of you, and then you'll surely won't expend any time cooling your barrels in water... apart of the fact that I'm sure you'll never find this nice pool next to you when it might be more needed In my unit we don't use the MG4, but we have one 7.62x51mm Rheinmetall MG3 per squad, so that's 3 in a section (An American platoon). With every "machine" (we never call it MG3 or MG42/59, but "la máquina" - the machine) we carry two extra barrels (1,8 kg. each) together with the cleaning set and a thick leather "glove"-like to remove the hot barrel. To avoid bending the barrel, it should be changed every 200-250 shots max. when in sustained firing. A fresh barrel is then inserted in around half a minute and the hot barrel slowly cools by itself next to the MG3. When you'll need it again, after another 400-500 shots, it will be completely cooled and ready to be used safely. We'll never dunk the barrels in water because a fast cooling will end up bending it and then you'll only have a nice useless metal rod or because most of the times the only water we have available around is in our one litre canteens just for drinking or just because to dip a weapon in water is the best way to rust it when you might won't be able to clean it thoroughly with WD-40 for a few days. About the fast rate of fire displayed in the video, it's really mad! To avoid fast overheating we use short bursts of 5 shots, alternating the use of three "machines": the first, the next, the last, the first, the next, etc. We practice enough so that we can deliver a continuous automatic fire on the targets for longer periods of time and with more precision. Nonetheless, the H&K MG4 is a 5.56 mm light machine gun just for the infantry role and can't be compared with the venerated 7.62 mm general purpose "machine", but I just wanted to add some info. Cheers, Lomir

Using an image editor and cutting out.

You may try using Fraps. There is a restricted free version to download in http://www.fraps.com that works great. Cheers

I strongly agree with many of the things you have said, Lethaface, but with some others unfortunately I don't. I would like to just give my opinion to the debate: I really don't think anyone here thinks human beings are not equal by nature. But still some of us we'll keep celebrating the death of certain people because they are not ethically equal to us. There's something called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The fundamental freedoms for all human beings. Let's have a quick look at it: Article 1All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 28Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. Jeez, you can go through the 30 articles of the declaration and many groups will come to your mind, i.e. the Talibans, that don't (or didn't in the past) observe a single one of them. The key word is respect. As far as they don't seem to understand this word, shouldn't we be glad everytime that those dregs of society won't continue their barbarous by dying? To dream of a better world? Let's change the time setting. 1943. "You cheer for a dead Waffen-SS volunteer, your neighbor starts cheering at the death of a German wearing skulls and crossbones symbols in his cap (all those extreme nazis are all criminals, right?), and before you know it a fascism like hatred for Nazis has emerged." (?) Something there makes no sense to me. What I'm trying to say is how easily the word "fascism" seems to be said nowadays just to discredit something. Yee haa, nuke them all!! Come on, man, let's try to be serious. We are trying to get rid of the Talibans, not to kill the entire population of Afghanistan whomsoever. I have to disagree about the "shooting them in the head until they stop being Taliban..." thing. A fish doesn't learn. A human does, and even sometimes really fast. About the latter I have to go back to the Nazi Germany again. How many of these new recruits you talk about could you see after the end of the war? Yup, every enemy soldier that died on that war was just an small, short term victory, but add on and you'll see the long term benefits. Crystal-clear. Yes, let's keep contemplating one's navel... Next time you'll be abroad on holidays and see a man raping a woman in her house, do nothing because it's not your country, your sister and your house, huh? It makes no difference to me. Hitler rose the power in 1933 and until the beginning of WWII it wasn't all roses. Better late than never. Remember that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

And this is what happens when you ride on your armoured vehicles in the "Russian style": you get dismounted See 6:12 of this documentary about South Ossetia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paJVCEbPo_4

Steve, I could say more than I should about the political hypocrisy in my country and how the Military end up paying with blood for that. Apart of the fact that Spanish society has a total lack of knowledge of what's going on in places like Afghanistan, since just from time to time our news say an IED has killed some of our soldiers there and they give no further information to make them understand why we are in this far away country. So then the "sheeps" bleat for them to come back since they don't have a f***ing clue of what is going on there. The approach you talk about is simple: the still current Government won the elections with the 11th of March 2004 Madrid train bombings (killing 191 people and wounding 1,800), three days before general elections. The two main parties started accusing each other of concealing or distorting evidence for electoral reasons. The former Government said the Basque terrorists of ETA were responsible for the bombings, since that would be favorable to their chances of being re-elected, while accepting the Islamist responsibility would have had the opposite effect, as it would have been perceived a consequence of the government's involvement in Irak, a policy already extremely unpopular with Spaniards (baa, baaaa... no blood for oooil...). Unfortunately for the U.S., George W. Bush wasn't the best public relations here in Europe. If he would have appeared on TV giving a can of powdered milk to a Sudanese I'm sure the common citizen would say he was getting paid somehow for it and people would stop drinking that brand of milk. Everything he was into, it was cursed, and so happened with our commitment in Irak. The current Government won the elections with the last votes he got promising the withdrawal of our troops from what was being seen as a Bush's adventure. Very easy: here the votes are the only important thing. The truth isn't. The politicians here always try to move in the directions of favorable polls. Doesn't matter how silly could be. So, in the hypothetical case of just one dirty bombs going off in a major city of Spain... I'll surely say that the public opinion would definitely ask in rage to send troops to Syria. And the Goverment would do that.

Everyone is entitled to his own taste, GSX. I don't think they are silly for that, and I really expect they will include them By the Spring of 2008 they [the terrorists] were all in place and waiting for the signal. [...] Within a few hours dozens of pounds of waste uranium were detonated by conventional explosives, polluting major cities of the West for hundreds of years with toxic radiation. [...] While further evidence was being sought the military forces of the West began to deploy to bases within striking range of Syria. [...] The smoking gun came in April [...] On June 15th sortie after sortie of Coalition aircraft launched attacks to soften up the Syrian defenses. The air attacks continued for three days as various nation's special forces slipped over Syria's porous borders to pave the way for the larger ground offensive. On the morning of the 19th a large American Force, Task Force Thunder, left its jump off positions and crossed into Syria... [...] From let's say end of March to the beginning of June there are two months. GSX, don't you think it's enough time to move the forces involved? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can recall that in the operation Iraqi Freedom 26.000 men mainly from your 1st Armoured Division, 7th Armoured Brigade, 16th Air Assault Brigade and 102nd Logistics Brigade were sent after the 20th of January 2003 and the ground forces started the offensive on the 20th of March 2003... It admit that since October 2002 some British units started deploying in Kuwait, but I think that since November 2003 a full "acclimatized" British Brigade has been in Irak until the time scope of the game. Even. And for the incoming troops, I would agree to say that the slowest deploying elements would take 10 weeks to get from their U.K. bases to combat readiness in the Syrian theatre. About politics, well, as you have very well said it's all sci-fi as this scenario has never happened in reality. You can't tell for sure what Germany would do if Berlin, Frankfurt, Munich and Hamburg have become a kind of Chernobyls with some hundreds of death, thousands requiring decontamination and a mass panic between your citizens. It may be, as you have said, that the politicians wouldn't send troops to Syria and then loose the elections on the next year... What I'm sure of is that they wouldn't invade Poland instead

Falconander, you had the same answer one minute before me It doesn't matter when you are talking of a battle between regular armies and men following orders. The ideological background behind these armies can be discussed to say we are the "good guys" and they are the "bad guys", and obviously the propaganda of them will say the opposite. But between soldiers there's no discussion about the respect to the enemy. We would just celebrate that they are dead and we are alive for one more day. You can't make it personal thinking in their beloved sons, wifes and mothers, because then you'll drop your guns and stop fighting. But, if you are talking about insurgents, I have to say a big NO: it matters who are they. If these insurgents are i.e. taliban fighters, then God knows that I'll celebrate every single dead of any of them. Surely they are still someone's son, husband or father, but they should better stay peacefully with them and not putting bombs like the terrorists they are. There won't be place to the respect for them as long as they don't have it for us, and I've got no remorse of their deads. I have a clean conscience and I sleep very well every single night. Unfortunately for us Europeans, the civil society has become a big group of lambs shaking with fear when the wolf is coming from the hills and taking one or two, to just forget it on the next day because they weren't their close ones so they can resume with their bucolic lives. Why sending the dogs to the far hills?? That's so expensive and we prefer to just have a newly painted white fence to make us feel safe! Sadly the European civvies are getting more and more shortsighted, and there's a total lack of understanding about why their "dogs" have gone to the hills to find the "wolf" before it comes back in the future. I guess that probably the shepherds are incompetent to do so, the media is not interested at all and the sheeps pass the day looking at their belly... Sorry me, I'm having a hard day... Cheers, Lomir

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Starlight. They shot the Hellfire on the insurgent next to the IED and later they probably take the other two with the cannon. The Hellfire will destroy the IED and they make sure no other insurgents are coming later to pick it up and use it at a different location on the next day. Just think what hell of an operation is to send an armed patrol to deactivate that IED in a place where the insurgents are active. With the Hellfire there aren't possible own casualties and just a hole (and not so deep as it may seem) in a dusty road full of them. About the cost of a single Hellfire mentioned before... What price would you actually put to the life of any of your own soldiers going where the IED is? I would say it's priceless. It's technology (and its costs) what prevents the numbers of our casualties abroad growing higher.

Yep, ScubaSam, I'm going to do that. Let me do some research into which British unit would make it enough acceptable and at the same time fun to depict in the campaign, and also wait that I get an idea of what kind of British toys you've been playing with during the last days! I haven't got CM:BF yet and I don't use to read the spoilers! I will keep you updated in the progress of the first scenario making. Scenario that in fact is placed in the Northeastern attack axis (at the Tall Kushik border post).

Thanks Combatintman! I agree that the map shouldn't be considered sacred to make a campaign, but in view of the fact that I don't mind to make a campaign with the 3/2 SBCT or let's say the 4/2 SBCT as I think all military units have their own "flavour" that makes them special to play with, I wanted to be accurate with the data provided in the map. But I'll surely have to use in the Northeastern attack route some unit that it's not pictured in the map. I'm thinking in using one (American or British) on the stand alone scenarios and another unit from the country not used before when the full campaign will be "released", as it will make the campaign good to play again all through and to compare the results. That's right: I'm really enjoying the Editor as much as playing the game, but it takes a lot of effort to make a map that looks right and realist (I'm still adjusting things in mine as I've found myself to be a quite meticulous map maker) and that's why I take my hat off to the many good developers I've seen here when I understand now by myself what they have really done. And I'm even more looking forward to the CM:British Forces since I've read in the forum that it has stunning maps! It should be en route... Cheers, Lomir

Thanks a lot! Well, yes, the Mechanized Brigade designated "FI" could depict a reinforced Finnish Rapid Deployment Force, although I wonder why Finland was to hypothetically field such a big unit not being a member of NATO neither a contributor to Eurocorps... Anyway, it's not possible to use them in the game. The Infantry Battalion designated "GR" I would say it's likely to be Greece (Germany would be D), and the Infantry Battalion designated "SP" would be Spain, both members of NATO. Another two countries not possible to use so far. So I may follow your piece of advice and add some small (company-sized or less) British forces as part of the Divisional HQ designated "EURO" to do some separate scenarios in the two northern attack routes. From the Southeastern towards Al Hasakah I will use a mechanized infantry battalion of the 3rd Brigade of the 2nd US Infantry Division (the "Arrowhead Brigade") and one reconnaissance troops as a core unit but not the whole 3/2 SBCT since it seems that is attacking Syria through three different axis (one per battalion). And as far as the Northeastern attack route is concerned, it's true that there's no unit depicted and it's not likely that the 3/2 SBCT would attack in such a big front, so I guess I can use an unit of my election We'll see, but it will probably be a British one. Unless you'll be a little "fed up" of Britons for a while and willing to play the most of the campaign with the good old Americans chaps.

Hi, I'm constructing a campaign placed in the Northeast of Syria (Al Jazerah region). I would like it to be accurate and consistent with the official outline of the Battlefront CM:SF series, but unfortunately I don't have the gorgeous map that comes with the Deluxe Collector's Edition of the base game (margin note to Battlefront: I think it would make good sales to offer the option to get the map with the future NATO module for some extra bucks. I would definitely go for that). So, sadly I can't tell apart which units are involved in the area of operations of my campaign. Can anyone help me? Please, don't get me wrong: I do NOT want anyone to send me a high definition scan of the map as I do believe that the owners of the map, and only them, have paid to have it and that wouldn't be fair, as well as there is a copyright on it. Just I need your help to name the five "blue" and six "red" units I have circled so I know what size and kind of forces I should use in the campaign and when. The campaign will be around 10 missions in length as I think some of the units depicted at the Turkish border are another NATO (non-U.S./British) forces, so I won't be able to include all the progression axis shown in the map. The first scenario is in Tall Kushik at the Syrian-Iraqi border. The idea of the campaign is to end up sealing off the main city of Al Hasakah and their regular forces from the rest of the country and to control the natural gas and oil resources of the region (cough, cough...). Hehehe, alright, we'll see, we'll see... I still have to do the script of the campaign and I think that will take me a tough time, since I read yesterday some particular thread and I realized that some of the members of the forum doesn't let you get away with anything, huh? Just kidding a little, hehe. To see how seriously I'm taking this campaign, just to say that I'm using a 8x8 meters overlay grid in Google Earth, so all the maps will be as much close to reality as possible (there is always some distortion as the map gets bigger, of course. There's no way to avoid some things). An aerial picture of Tall Kushik with the grid I'm using: And two screenshots for now: I'm getting very into the small details, i.e. a door connecting two buildings has another door facing it exactly on the opposite building, there aren't windows within the walls, I'm using many flavour objects as street lamps or telephone poles facing the correct angles, etc. Somewhat time consuming but the result look is very rewarding. So last but not least, I have to sincerely congratulate all the developers of the CM:SF Editor. It's simply wonderful what you can create with it!! Great job, gents. Soon I'll upload the first scenario in the repository as a stand alone, so you can play it (in v1.20). Let's say in a couple of weeks now so I can create the Order of Battle and a good AI script. Any ideas and opinions will be very welcome. Cheers, Lomir

Nope, that camouflage pattern is designated BGS-Sumpfmuster: a splinter pattern consisting of greenish sand, olive green and brown with dark green "raindrop pattern". It's been used since the 60's by the (West) German Borderpolice (Bundesgrenzschutz - BGS). Although the raindrop pattern resembles those uniforms used by the NVA (former East German Armed Forces) and other Warsaw Pact countries, it's a Western design. In Syria the German Army (Deutsches Heer) would use the desert flecktarn jacket in three colours: tan background and green and brown spots. The desert uniform pattern is based on the standard German 5-colour flecktarn camouflage pattern used in the field jacket: green (13.3 %) is replacing black, brown is brown (17.5 %) and the dark green, light green and grey green are tan (69.2 %). Here is a photo of a German ISAF soldier by DAVID AXE: Cheers, Lomir

I forgot the vehicles of the Spanish Navy Marines (Infantería de Marina): [usa] AAV-7A Assault Amphibian Vehicle. [usa] HMMWV 'Humvee' (yes, the U.S. original). [ch] MOWAG Piranha IIIC 8x8 Armoured Fighting Vehicle.