agusto

JESUS Reiter! This song must be on #1 in the Klingon charts?

I wonder why no one has mentioned these two yet:

EDIT: forget about it...

It took me some time to realize he' s singing english, Mord. The original is german: And when we' re talking about Falco we need to mention these classics of course:

The ICAO regulates the cooperation of civllian an military aircraft. Military aircraft must have due regard for the saftey of navigation civil aircraft and they must cooperate with civillian ATM services if saftey requires it. http://www.icao.int/apac/meetings/2012_cmc/cir330_en.pdf Just because you are in international airspace doesnt mean you can do what you want and ignore the ICAOs regulations. The US for example provides ATC services over a large part of the Pacific Ocean, even though the airspace is international. Both very unlikely.

I asked a professional pilot i personally know today and he told me that secondary radar does not detect aircraft if they have their transponder turned off. Furthermore he told me that there is an international agency, the ICAO, that standardises aviation procedures. Russia is a member state of the ICAO and a such is obligated to follow ICAO regulations. According to ICAO regulations, all aircraft of all memberstates must obey to specific rules. All aircraft, civillian and military, that fly in controlled airspace must have their transponders turned or, if they dont have any, at least be in radio contact with ATC controllers on the ground. Above international waters air traffic is generally free, but aircraft that use or cross airways are still obligated to have their transponders (if they have any) turned on and to make contact with ATC (if available). Military exercises during which aircraft fly with their transponders turned off an without beeing in contact with the ATC are held in restricted airspace

The german Wikipedia article explicitly states that Secondary radar can not detect aircraft that have their transponders turned off. "Allerdings ist dazu die Mitarbeit des Ziels notwendig. Fehlt diese Mitarbeit, zum Beispiel weil der Transponder defekt ist, so ist das Sekundärradar nicht arbeitsfähig und dieses Flugobjekt wird nicht erkannt. Deshalb arbeiten die meisten Sekundärradargeräte in einer Kombination mit einem Primärradar." http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekund%C3%A4rradar#Funktionsweise I think we need better sources than Wikipedia.

Thanks a lot! I always hated my english teacher at school, but it seems she did her job well.

That is not correct. There are two different types of civillian radar: primary radar and secondary radar. Primary radar operates the classic way, with a an eletromagnetic wave beeing sent out from the radar, reflected from the aircraft and then received again by the radar. Secondary radar instead is passive and only works with actively emitting targets, i.e. aircraft that have their transponders turned on. If an aircraft turn off it' s transponder, it will be invisible to secondary radar. At airports and similar installation both radar types are usually used in conjunction, but there is not necessarily a civillian country-wide primary radar coverage. Technically it' s entirely possible to avoid beeing located by ATC by turning the transponder off. Source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prim%C3%A4rradar http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekund%C3%A4rradar Whether or not the russian airplanes flying in international airspace with their transponders off can be considered an act of agressions also depends on whether or not the russians did such things in the past. Even if it' s internationally usual for military aircraft to operate outside of their countries airspace with their transponders turned off, it could still be viewed as an act of agression if Russia had not done such flights in the past but then changed its behaviour. Source? I couldnt find anything useful via google.

Well even if you are working hard on two jobs simultaniously, you should still try to show at least some etiquette. I am sure most people here will appreciate it. Whatever, that' s not what i want to discuss with you now. Correct use of grammar and the use of well defined vocabulary are necessary to be correctly understood by others and to be taken seriously in a discussion. Communication between two people works best if both agree to use a set of well defined grammatical rules and vocabularies. Any deviation from those norms to which both parties agree increases the risk of a misunderstanding and is hence to be avoided, at least in that kind of rational discussion that we are trying to have here. Using badly defined swear words and metaphores like "attention whore" or calling someone a "clown" is inaccurate and hence reduces the value of your statement. Furthermore what you posted earlier may be your opinion to which you are entirely entiteld but it does not at all meet the criteria of an arguement or even any kind of rational thought, which lessens the value of your statement even more. One could even argue that to post something like you did is offensive towards the people who read your post because it clearly shows that you have no intent to contribute something of value but instead just want to disturb others with worthless outbursts of hate-speech. Thanks for correcting me. I am not a native english speaker and i see participating in english speaking forums as an opportunity to improve my english. I always try to do my best to use proper english, but natuarally i may sometimes make mistakes.

"Truppe" and "Trupp" are two different words. "Truppen" is the plural of "Truppe", "Trupps" is the plural of "Trupp". A Trupp is alway a group of 2-5 soldiers. A Truppe can be of any size - from a 2 men sniper team to a whole division or more. Hence 2 Trupps are always 4-8 soldiers while 2 Truppen can be pretty much everything. For example die Panzer und die Infanterietruppen are just an unspecified number of tank and infantry groups of any size.

Are there any documents supporting your accusation that US military aircraft are flying in civillian air corridors with transponders turned off? If you cant provide any, in dubio pro reo. A very valueable contribution to this discussion. The complete lack of interpunction and grammar elegantly underlines your sharp political analysis, while a smattering of swear words shows how highly qualified you are to make that judgement. Seriously, you should stop typing from your phone and use a computer again. The quality of your posts has slackned in past few months. I am not trying to insult you here, it' s just my observation.

That would be the logical approach IanL. But the game mechanics could work different. If a units ammo count is not some sort of function but just stored as a single integer and the game does not differ between the ammo that is stored in the BMP and the ammo that the infantry units carry, it might work. I am having the picture of a CMBN mortar platoon in my mind: If the whole platoon is bunched up, the ammo count of each unit say it has about 60 shells. If they are dispersed, each unit only has about 20. But all this is academic, the only real way to find it out is to try it.

@Combatintman: Thanks for your input. You have some really good ideas. I am gonna comment later on them when i have time. I reviewed the MEUs OOB and i decided against adding more Javelins. Javelins are much rarer in the UMSC than they are in the US Army and the scenario should reflect that. I will give you some other nice toys instead . The MEUs organic AT platoon has about 9 TOW Humvees as AT platforms and a mix of 50.cal and Mk-19 Humvees as escorts. I think they will nicely improve balance by giving Blue more AT capabilities without having to add 2 more of those almost invincible M1A1 death machines of doom. You mean making a scenario or playing a PBEM battle?

Kohlenklau, you live in Texas, dont you? Doesnt that make a Combat-Mission Rodeo obligatory or am i too badly influenced by the cliches we Europeans associate with Texas ? You do live on a Ranch in the desert though, do you?

I understand. But as i said before in one of my last posts, it' s always a cost-gain question when you want to do something that might hurt someone. Let' s take a look at the coffins thing. On the one hand, you say that showing the coffins would help the American public understand that the cost of war are human lifes, and i agree with you that this could be a way that works. But on the other hand, you have the personality rights of the deceased and the emotions of their relatives. The question now is: is ignoring the the emotions of the relatives and the personality rights of the fallen worth educating the public AND is there a way the public could be educated without having to hurt someone? I think that the interestes of the relatives and the personality rights of the deceased are worth more because there is a huge number of different ways that can be used to educate the public about the costs of war. The exception to the rule would be the case were the fallen soldier agrees to his coffin/funeral beeing shown on TV or (ideally) both the relatives and the soldier agree.

Had you shown your classmates photos of of coffins with US flags on them, would those photos have informed them that the US are fighting in Afgahnistan and Iraq simultaniously? No, they had not. But a newspaper article would have informed them. Or even better, reading newspapers everyday would have informed them. But i agree with you, the fact that some many voters are so badly informed is definately a problem. In general, in every democratic country, not only in the US.

1) Iraq was the first war in which the US army used the concept of embeded reporters. 2) Only embedded reporters were not allowed to film casualties. Non-embedded, classical reporter were allowed to film what ever they got in front of their lense. So if anything, the concept of the embedded reporter enhanced and supported the press, it didnt prevent the press from doing anything they did before the concept of embedded reporters was invented. Of course the US army used this as a tool for media warfare, but the reporters were 1) certainly aware of that and 2) not limited in by any means in doing their job the classical way. Also the ceremonies involving coffins were closed ceremonies in general. Non-public, invite only.

I think it is democratically important that the public is informed if soldiers get killed. If soldiers get killed in a war, it concerns every citizen, not just themselves, their families and friends and the military unit they serve in. Soldiers are official representatives of their nation and a democratic nation represents all of its citizens. Hence all citizens have the right to get the information how and why these soldiers died. This is necessary for the democratic system to work properly. The citizens must be informed on what their representatives do (politicians, soldiers, etc) so they can choose those representatives that represent them best. Showing the deceased bodys of soldiers KIA/WIA on TV though would be disproportional IMO. It would not do any good on the one hand but on the other hand, it would insult that soldiers personality right (i hope i am using the correct vocabulary here to express what i want to say). I think that this is also true for enemy KIA/WIA. Of course every citizen has the right to be informed on what damage weapons of war do to the human body, but there are other means available to get that information (like medical papers, studies, etc), so showing the deceased and mauled body of an individual soldiers is not necessary to ensure that everybody who deems it necessary can get that information. Of course you have the right to say it. Regarding this and similar matters, i often hear people say "You cant do that." and similar things, but of course you can do it. The question is only if you should do. I think that currently showing the deceased bodys of soldiers would do more damage than good, for the reasons i explained above, but of course that could change at some point in the future. It may be possible that at some point in the future it' s going to be necessary to show deceased bodys on TV because, for example, our society could become so abstract that no one could imaging what a dead body looks like or even what death is, even if it was described to them. What i want to say is: all moral judgements are always conditional. If the conditions change, the judgement needs to revised. I totally agree with you that the bodys of deceased soldiers shouldnt be shown on TV. Right now, in 2015, it isnt necessary, and it hasnt been necessary in the past 20 years i can remember. But i am open to what ever the future might make necessary. I hope that wasnt too much BS.

Hey, couldnt you buIld an ammo sharing chain? Team A is within 16 meters of the BMP and shares ammo witrh the BMP. Team B is within 16 meters of team A but not within 16 meters of the BMP. Yet, because the BMP and team A are sharing ammo, team B has access to the BMPs ammo. Team C is within 16 meters of team B but not within 16 meters of the BMP or team A. Yet, because the BMP and team A and team A and team B are sharing ammo, team C has acces to the BMPs ammo. I mean: BMP->shares with->A->shares with->B->shares with->C => BMP->shares with->C? Has anyone tried that?

Thanks a lot for your critique, grunt_GI and sburk. It' s very valueable to me because this is the first time i am designing a Blue vs. Red scenario with mechanized units and large armored formations. All my previous scenarios were Red vs. Red & infantry only. *****SPOILERS BELOW****** I will come back tomorrow and maybe we can discuss if the changes i intend to make would improve the scenario. In short, i intend to do the following: 1) Change mission time from 2:00 to 2:30 + 15 minutes variable time. 2) Move the recon phase to the time before the battle starts. The scout snipers will be in place at the start of the battle and the Blue player will have 10% to 20% pre-battle intel. There will still be enough time (about 20 to 25 turns) to manually recon the area and shell juicy targets with arty. 3) I will reduce the time until the main Blue force arrives by 5 to 10 turns and i will delay the Red reinforcements by abput 10 turns. I want the Red reinforcements to arrive while the Blue palyer is doing MOUT operations so the scenario doesnt end up beeing a boring door-by-door clearing operation. The Blue player should ideally busy clearing the objectives and then see the Red battalion arrive and think:" Oh sh*t, these guys are going to stir up my infantry at the airport badly. I need to act quickly!". 4) I am going to put a note in the briefing and recommend the blue player to use smoke barrages. I am also going to change the wind direction in favor of a blue smoke screen. 5) Add more AT weapons/ammo to the BLUE side. 6) I will see if i can do anything to make it easier to keep the Javelin teams supplied with ammo. Hey, if you are seriously considering playing the scenario a second time, it would be great if you could wait for the next version. That way you can play a more balanced and enjoyeable scenario and i can get feedback on the changes i am going to make. Dont take the victory conditions too seriously, they arent finished yet. Currently if you manage to clear the objectives while losing less than 25% of your men, you should gain a victory. Although if you destroy Objective X-Ray, you will lose. Capturing it intact is the ONLY reason why your men are attacking the airport in the first place. Hmm, i think loosing your transports is your own fault. Sorry. I dont think i could do anything about it. If you must, try to let your M1s catch the enemys ATGMS, they can take a lot of beating and still remain operational. Maybe i will put a note about that in the briefing. But regarding the tank ammo, i could add 2 more tanks, or maybe the dedicated AT platoon (Javs + TOW Humvees) of the MEU. I just dont want the scenario to get too easy. I will have to paly around and see what works best. Thanks. Interesting. I am surprised you spotted that few BMPs during the recon phase. During my tests i was able to spot most of them every time. But i guess that' s because it' s just too damn difficult to get that god-like knowledge i have of the Red forces out of my head. I mean, i placed every single Red unit, i cant un-remember that. That's why having other people test your scenarios is so important. The Red reinforcements arrive to early it seems. They are supposed to arrive after the Blue players infantry has entered the buiklt up area. See my above comment on the changes i intend to make.. That' s a great idea. I am going to combine it with some pre-battle intel and see how that plays out. Sorry, i am awareof this problem, but i wont make any changes to the map. It was built with the help of satelite images and i am personally really fond of playing CM games on maps built after real life locations. IRL you cant just grow a tree on an airport runway because it serves your tactical needs, can you . But i am going to put a note in the briefing and recommend the blue player to use smoke barrages. I am also going to change the wind direction in favor of a blue smoke screen. I considered changing the blue spawn area from the S-E corner to the S edge of the map, but i want to keep that idea for a second scenario i have in mind for this map. As i said, the Red reinforcements arrived way too early in your case. Durng my tests they were just in time, but i will delay them a bit. Anyways thanks for taking the time to test this.

Michael isnt just someone. With 24,118 posts, he is the most active poster of all 36,989 Battlefront.com mebers. He even posted more than Steve aka Mr. Battlefront.com himself . But not only is he the most active poster who has ever been on this forum, he is also the 10th person that registered here. http://community.battlefront.com/index.php?app=members&module=list&max_results=20&sort_key=posts&sort_order=desc&filter=ALL http://community.battlefront.com/members/?sort_key=joined&sort_order=desc&max_results=20&st=30380 During the past 16 years, that man has devoted a significant amount of his lifetime to beeing part of this community and to playing the Combat Mission games. Battlefront should send him a medal to his hospital bed for his faithfulness. I am serious. At least some flowers. He deserved it.

Remember the ridiculous "covert" operation in Crimea? Ha. Haha. Reminds me of The Dictator:

"Kader" in a military context means "professional soldiers" - conscripts are Wehrpflichtige. The word "Kader" has to do with the quality of the soldiers, not the quantity. "Riege"...? I have never heard of that word in a military context. "Trupp" is a fireteam. A "Gruppe" is a squad. German -> English: Trupp -> Fireteam Gruppe -> Squad Zug -> Platoon Kompanie -> Company Battaillon -> Battalion (be careful with the german spelling!) Brigade -> Brigade Regiment -> Regiment Attention: The Waffen-SS uses different designations and ranks than the Wehrmacht/Bundeswehr.

Hey kohlenklau maybe you should advertise your convention in the other subforums of Battlefront.com as well, because you see, the General Discussion forum is not the most populated place here. I am sure Steve and the others wont mind it if you make a thread in every CM-related sub-forum (or better ask them first). Maybe you will even get your own anouncement on the BFC main page . Just ask them. Also you should promote your idea at other CM forums, like http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/.