Ultradave

The following screen shots are from FM3-22.90 (2007), now superseded by TC3-22.90 (2017 lots more computer info for 120mm track mortars) both titled "Mortars" Note that the FDC here is the 2 man FDC of the mortar platoon, not the artillery battery FDC. "Computer personnel" can refer to the modern setting where they use specialized small computers, or it can refer to the job title, when using "charts and darts" - plotting with pins and protractors and calculating elevation using firing tables or special slide rules, which everyone has to be able to know how to do in case the digital computer is not available or working. Anything pretty much CMCW and prior, charts and darts is all there is. Dave

You took a one line statement from an entire video that mentioned no FDC and ran with it. That statement is not wrong, however, I explained why it needs some further explanation and context and should not just be taken as an absolute statement. There is no need at all for your snide and snarky comment. In fact, it's pretty damned rude and obnoxious. There IS firing data to be calculated. It's done by the mortar platoon. They act as their own FDC. Now you can believe that or not. I really don't care. I think I've made it quite clear in the past that *I* used to do this for a living. And if you wanted to you could even look up the field manual for the US mortar platoon (which covers 60mm, 81mm, 120mm) and you could read it for yourself all about how a mortar platoon is layed, how firing data is calculated, how it is applied to the mortars, instead of taking anyone's word for it, like mine, or the West Point guy who has 6 years active duty as a Combat Engineer officer and is teaching an intro class mentioning fire support. Combat Engineers are fantastic, but I'd submit his actual fire support experience is second hand. As for me - 10 years as a Field Artillery officer, including FIST Chief (which would include my mortar experience and contact), Battery Fire Direction Officer, Battalion Fire Support Officer, Field Artillery Battalion Asst. S-3 (Battalion Fire Direction Officer), and Brigade Fire Support Officer. I rest my case. Dave

Mortars not using a FDC is an oversimplification. And the comment about not using "the FDC" is a misnomer. The "the FDC" you are referring to is the artillery battery FDC and no, it doesn't compute firing data for the mortars. It only computes data for it's own artillery pieces. HOWEVER, the mortar section acts as their own FDC by computing its own firing data. So it performs all the same functions - plotting the target, determining deflection and elevation settings, plotting corrections and new firing data. This is all the same functioning of the artillery FDC, but handled right in the mortar section, just as artillery data is handled within the firing battery. Either way, the data must be calculated, even if you have a direct LOS to the target. In that case you are your own FO. Dave

Nothing, really. It was during M1 testing at Fort Knox (back in the Dark Ages). So everyone shrugged and said "Oops. Oh, well," apparently. Dave

While I went Field Artillery, my college roommate went Armor. His platoon broke a M1 Abrams. 1st and 2d tank stopped short. 3rd tank didn't (well, it did shortly!). 4th tank didn't. Cracked the hull of the 3rd tank when it was sandwiched between #2 and #4. The irresistible force and immovable object. 60 tons moving 25mpg vs 180 tons stopped.

Slightly different but my first Radiation Analysis Section head as a civilian had previously worked on the proposed nuclear powered aircraft at Pratt and Whitney, the most "useful" version being a strategic bomber that could remain on station for days. The problem was that so much shielding was required to shield the crew from the reactor that you couldn't get it off the ground, requiring more power, which required a bigger reactor, which required even more shielding. You see the problem, eh? He said it was a really interesting project. Cutting edge at the time. Dave

Having lived in England I was surprised by the wide variety of accents there are in that "small island" (Bill Bryson reference). We lived in the far northwest and there is a distinct accent in Cumbria. And across the way the Geordie accents of Newcastle. At work one of the admins asked the British engineer that I worked with "I can tell you are from Newcastle, but I can't quite place whether it's north or south of the river" [Tyne] I thought, boy that's really localized accents. And then there were the engineers from Scotland working there, and one of them made it a point to speak slowly so the rest of us could understand him. And not just the Americans either - the British needed him to slow down too. At lunches we had spirited fun conversations about language, pronunciations. All in good fun. It was a great experience. So different living there as opposed to just touristy visiting (which I had done before that). Dave

Ah, but what's the challenge in that? I play tested the US campaign, 1979. First scenario you start with a handful of M48a5s. Hoooboy! That makes life interesting. Dave

Kind of made me glad at the time I was in an Airborne division and not driving a rolling target like my college roommate (he went Armor - I went Field Artillery) Dave

It is, very. The mantra at the time was "If you can be seen you will be hit. If you are hit, you are dead" Minimizing exposure was high emphasis. It wasn't always possible of course. Dave

You obviously then, really intended to tell him to clam up. Seriously though, sound like just a troll. 13 years and just now posts? Dave

Any chance you have icons turned off? (ALT-I). That will make the pause text disappear. Other than that it works fine for me, and nothing like this was noted in play testing. Dave

I'm able to run everything at Best. Sometimes I turn shaders off, sometimes on. Some scenarios do better with them off. To me I don't see a big difference in the two resolutions. I'd say run all the graphics options at best/max, and then cut back a little if it seems to bog down. Should be fine for all but the biggest scenarios. Dave

Possibly what works on my 13" MacBook Pro works for the guy whose question I was answering who has the exact same computer. Why are you arguing with me? I wasn't telling YOU to do anything. Carry on mate. It was for the guy with the MacBook Pro. Dave

Go to Settings, Displays, and set your resolution to Scaled, More Space. Then open up CMBS, set to Display Size to Desktop. Quit CMBS. Then start it up again. Presto - higher screen resolution. I'm a little confused about it looking horrible though. Looks nice on mine. And I find the More Space setting to be hard on the eyes for anything else like web pages or working on text files. But it does work fine for CM. And editing the "display size.txt" file won't do anything unless you change the Mac display to More Space. Dave

One piece of advice that gets mentioned often, not just by me, is to choose the period and theatre that most interest you and you'll be guaranteed to enjoy. Personally for WW2 I like BN and FB, however, FI with it's 2 modules and RT with the FR module offer lots of content too. For modern I like CW hands down. Great content, but partly it's because of 10 years as an Army officer in that era so it's what I trained for for years. Interesting to play it out. Although while in the 82d our mission was a bit different than armored combat in the Fulda Gap, and many times we were occupied with [waves hands] "other things" Dave

Both are good with lots of content. I would say to pick the one that you are most interested in and you'll have fun. Can't go wrong either way. Dave

I'm stumped. I've done several installs since installing Monterey, both CM and other software, and haven't run into any issues that weren't already there in Big Sur. I'm on a 3 year old MacBook Pro though and not a M1, so that may make a difference. The Big Sur graphics glitches appear to be OpenGL related, and shouldn't affect the progress of installation. They are that the progress bar and background don't appear when loading a scenario, and the progress bar does not appear after pressing the red button to submit moves, and the license additional products window acts very wonky (that's a technical term). It flashes and jumps, making it a pain to enter serial numbers. I've submitted a bug report in the beta system for those but so far no joy. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Dave

Just want to add another thanks for @Bootiefor all the work. And to anyone who wants to criticize, two things that was drilled into me as a young LT in the Army: 1) If you are going to criticize a plan or an operation, you'd better also in the next breath put forward a viable alternative. 2) When putting forward that viable alternative, the response from a senior officer is likely to be "That's an OUTSTANDING idea, lieutenent. You're in charge. I'd like a plan of action from you in the morning" Happy Christmas Eve everyone. And for a little of that winter spirit, our first snowfall of the season here on the Rhode Island coast. (not terribly scenic but it was dark walking the dogs and I had to point toward lights to get the snow to show up). Dave

Yes, it would be lovely. It was tried, and there were too many oddities with it that the consensus was it wasn't ready for primetime. But it sure would be nice to revisit it for the future (it's on the list of requests - guess we'll just have to see). Dave

That's essentially it. I went across the dam with about 2/3(?) of my force, sent the rest up the road along the lake. Some long range shooting from the far end of the lake to the town, and the 2/3 force that crossed the dam, half of those went up the trail/track through the woods to the hilltop, the rest along the road along that side of the lake. The ones on the hilltop had good sightlines to the enemy in the town, the ones on the lower road eliminated everything down there and were fairly well hidden from the enemy in the town. I won, but it was very bloody. It's a tough one. I don't remember the exact split of forces, but that may help. Take your time, try to find hull down positions when you are on that hilltop, or else you'll pay dearly. (basically creep up towards the top to get a look down the other side) Dave

Mac OS X version

Nope. Was just going to the website. It’s the URL it didn’t like. Bud had the answer. Dave

I exactly why I included the word “theoreticallly”

@Roby7979 This invite doesn't work on my Mac. It returns and error that says the url is not recognized in Mac OS. Impossible to get there. Dave