agusto
-
Posts
2,165 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by agusto
-
-
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:
-
Russia is a member of ICAO but those rules are applied only to civilians airplanes. Military aircraft are not by any mean obliged to follow ICAO regulations, they may choose to cooperate with civilians controllers or they may not with no violation of international law.
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
"Above international waters.." are you kidding? and where it would be international airspace located, over national lands? Do you (or your pilot acquaintance) understand that the airspace over the land of a given country is considered national and as such, if russian military airplanes entered say, the polish one, it would be an act of war?
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.
Same goes for the secondary radar matter - either the pilot you know lied to you, or was misinformedBoth very unlikely.
-
btw, as Augusto reported, notice how the german wikipedia page says that secondary surveillance radars NEED to have transponder replies to be able to pin-point the location of observed targets, which is something that for people knowing the involved technologies, is a completely wrong information.
The german Wikipedia article explicitly states that Secondary radar can not detect aircraft that have their transponders turned off.
(...)
I think we need better sources than Wikipedia.
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
-
You are not seeing this right.
You fail to understand what the links you posted mean, especially the "secondary radar" one.
Wikipedia states that :
Secondary surveillance radar (SSR)[1] is a radar system used in air traffic control (ATC), that not only detects and measures the position of aircraft i.e. range and bearing, but also requests additional information from the aircraft itself such as its identity and altitude. Unlike primary radar systems that measure only the range and bearing of targets by detecting reflected radio signals, SSR relies on targets equipped with a radar transponder, that replies to each interrogation signal by transmitting a response containing encoded data. SSR is based on the military identification friend or foe (IFF) technology originally developed during World War II, therefore the two systems are still compatible. Monopulse secondary surveillance radar (MSSR), Mode S, TCAS andADS-B are similar modern methods of secondary surveillance.
So as you may have noticed, even secondary radar (which, by definition, is used as a backup of a primary one) is able to locate a target by range and bearing - that gives the operator a point on his screen, clearly showing the position of the aircraft. This, without any usage of the transponder.The article describes how the system relies on transponder interrogation to extrapolate the target's identification (the 4 digit code I talked about previously), and altitude.Keeping in mind that no civilian airspace is covered ONLY by SSR, at least in the developed world, even in the case of malfunction of ALL the primary radars in a given zone (many of them also overlap, which means that if one is down, another one can get the information), the SSR is able to have precise coordinates of a given flight.Also, in the case of a russian military aircraft, the SSR would have the precise coordinates of said airplane, only lacking altitude data and identification.But yet again, SSR only would be a theoretical scenario - The real scenario, that is primary radars covering airspaces, would also get the altitude data on the russian aircraft, only lacking the identification digit - which is in all purposes - useless information.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.
-
For a non-native English speaker I am very impressed with your abilities in the language. I wish I had been able to learn another language with enough confidence to verbally spar on a message board as you are able to do.
Your use of sarcasm in a non-native language is also quite impressive
,that is of course that you don't posses fat fingers.Thanks a lot! I always hated my english teacher at school, but it seems she did her job well.
-
The system works like this: civilians air controllers, monitoring flights on their radars, can watch the blips on their screens with a datablock displayed near every return: this usually renders the altitude, the bearing and speed of the observed airplane. At last, IF the observed flight has its transponder on, that 4 number digit is displayed, along with the aforementioned data. So basically it is a measure which makes ATC work a little easier - air controllers can find a specific flight on the screen just by scanning it quickly, as the transponder code univocally identifies a single airplane with a number the controller knows. As air control radars are normally pretty cluttered with flights, especially in areas with mayor cities and airports, it somehow reduces the controller's workload.
But, having the transponder on or off doesn't change at all if an aircraft is visible or not - if an AC is observed without the transponder code, it is classified as "uncollaborative return" - yet the flight parameters of the aircraft are still displayed just like all the other contacts, so it's just the matter of that single air controller knowing at a glance which plane he is observing.
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
As already said, flying in international airspace with no transponder broadcast has never been considered an aggressive action, and it would be treated like pretty much routine for ATCs located in Poland or Denmark, for example. "Civilians corridors" are not reserved to airliners by no aviation international law - they get criss-crossed every day hundreds of times by military aircraft all over the world - not only russian.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.
Russian military aircraft don't even have a transponder which is compatible with western ATC radars, they carry a military IFF transponder not unlike those carried by western military, which broadcasts an encrypted signal to military radar controllers and identify the aircraft as friendly or unknown (any plane not carrying that equipment would be classified as unknown).Source? I couldnt find anything useful via google.
-
if i didnt have to work two jobs i.d have more time to post from a computer. regardless my statement stands.
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.
i believe time continues to bear snowden out as someone who just wanted attention and did what he did. and people probably died because of it. just like walker sold the soviets secrets for money for a lavish lifestyle and people died for it. what snowden did wasnt whistleblowing it was treason.
Whatever, that' s not what i want to discuss with you now.
oh and your assessment that one.s using swear words makes their opinion any less valid just shows me either the validity of your opinions to me, or your prudishness, or both. speaking of grammar it.s valuable not valueable.
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.
speaking of grammar it.s valuable not valueable.
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.
-
I thought it was "Truppen," as in die Panzertruppen, seen here. Has there been some change in military linguistics in Germany since the end of WW II?
"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.
-
Ofc you know by hearth all the routes and the patrol zones, or you have links that document that information?
Do we have an official SAC text documenting the usage of civilian transponders while on patrol? If I'd have to redirect B-52s and B-1s to nuclear strike Russia at a moment notice,
I wouldn't have them broadcasting their ids all over, even to russian civilian airspace controllers
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.
snowdens an attention whore clown
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.
However, you brought up a good point that didn't really occur to me...LVTPs, unlike Bradleys, only carry Javelin reloads and no launcher, so yes, having more Javelin teams might be helpful.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.Hi
Anyone interested in teaming up to make a 2015 Ramadi battle? If not the city proper perhaps the surrounding villages.
Kevin
kevinkin@comcast.netYou 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? 
-
Sorry Agusto I should have put these two points in separate paragraphs, what I meant by the coffins comment was that the American public should understand through that the reality and cost of the war, the blissful ignorance of where we are fighting is another problem.
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.
-
Its sad to say, but I think the only thing that actually gets through the thick head of the American public that we are at war was seeing those reports with the coffins coming home. People are so detached in this country its almost laughable in a horrifying way, I did a report on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in my senior year of High School, at the end of the writing assignment we had to give a speech on our topic to the class. I had a few questions where my classmates failed to realize we were fighting in BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan, they were smart people too, and thats when I realized that we have a serious problem here.
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.
-
America has had wars, before Irak and the Bush administration, yet no government had made laws to forbid the filming of the casualties coming back home. So the question is, was the Bush administration more respectful and sensible to the soldiers whose death it caused than the previous administrations? Or it has, just maybe a little, vilified the principles of the constitution which it had swore on?
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.
I'd have to agree with panzer. There are limits to the "public's right". Why should I have the "right" to say I want to see a soldier's body on the 10 o'clock news? How is that affecting my freedoms if I don't? The actual fact of the deaths is important to know what our military is doing and what our soldiers are being committed to. but actual photos of them is just a bit morbid.
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.
I might give it another go, maybe roll from A to B to X to C...my theory is if you take those, there isn't much left at C, but that clump of enemy at X-ray is going to be one tough nut to crack.
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.
...but glad I made it through this one, even with a tactical defeat.
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.
The distances and mismatch of the forces make things tough for two reasons...1) if you're a knucklehead like me and get your LVTPs schwacked...which I did, cuz they're big fat mostly unarmored targets, your jarheads have to hoof it...and that takes a lot of time...even if they don't get shot up. Second, I actually RAN OUT of tank ammo in 1 of my M1s...never had that happen to me, but he was so busy killing BMPs and T-72s that tank ran out of HEAT and APDS ammo. NOT good.
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.
Great job...enjoyed it...
Thanks.
My initial hit is this is trying to be too many things within a 2 hour window.
Recon period - 30 minutes is not a whole lot of time particularly if your recon is facing possible resistance.
I ran into the one enemy Fo and took the team out without loss, but it occupied that force for a period where it couldn't really observe. My other recon teams got into position and spotted a total of one BMP. All in all not what I was hoping for. Part of the issue is simply the US starts in this wide open flat lands and the couple buildings are way too far to be able to spot infantry. You have to hoof it a ways before you reach buildings you can use to gain some altitude. Even with that you initially can't spot much of anything. Even when the enemy AT teams opened up on my M1s, the recon teams didn't ID them, the tanks did.
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.
So at the end of the 30 minutes your main force shows up. You haven't really spotted much, but know there are definitely enemy ATGM teams out there. Then within 10 minutes or so an enemy mech force rolls in so now your grunts are sitting tight while the JAVs and support assets take on the enemy counter attack force. (which had another side effect. All the LAVs carry Javs and I ended up running them over to the Jav teams to replenish their supply as they were responsible for most of the kills. Net result is my Infantry hung out while their tracks were busy resupplying the Jav teams.) Once those are sufficiently attrited, you can now consider sending in your boys, but the enemy AT defenses are still out there and you are down to maybe 45-50 minutes. I am pushing on Obj Alpha, but considering the amount of ground to cover and the enemy units scattered about I doubt I will grab all the objectives. It requires too much of a rush that is going to lead to too many casualties.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..
Suggestions - before considering changing the overall scenario there might be some tweaks to help. The main one being, instead of the recon guys starting at your kickoff line perhaps you can place them assuming they infiltrated through the night. Set them up closer so the player isn't spending the 30 minutes just to get them in place as the enemy main force shows up. That might end up with them being more useful though I was surprised at how little of the enemy I could spot before they opened fire.
That' s a great idea. I am going to combine it with some pre-battle intel and see how that plays out.
Perhaps some more variation in the terrain. It is essentially flat with a slope so that the enemy side of the map is lower than the US side. Some variation might break up the LOS. Right now it looks for the US like a push across open ground right into the face of a mostly concealed enemy.
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.
If you keep the recon period I would consider extending the time a bit. Having played mostly through, I might adjust my jump off time for my infantry, but only in retrospect. I am not a fan of mounted infantry rushes into potential deathtraps. I could probably get away dumping some smoke and going in sooner, but I hesitated when I saw all those tanks on the move.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.
-
It's great to see the level of concern over our missing Member
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/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/.
,that is of course that you don't posses fat fingers.
? You do live on a Ranch in the desert though, do you? 
Fit for this game
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
JESUS Reiter! This song must be on #1 in the Klingon charts?