db_zero

Thanks for the info. What sort of anti-missile defense system does the Bradley have? I hope for the sake of the infantry the Bradley carries a anti-missile system defense system that is infantry friendly considering it is an infantry fight vehicle.

I can agree with all of the above. I would also throw out there for consideration its also a question of money, budgets and politics. The Marines have pushed for a better rifle, if I understood the articles and quotes from the upper command, but they lack the clout to get it through congress. Then again if you really get down to the nitty gritty of the how defense dollars gets allocated and spent you would come up confused if you applied sound business logic. There is a reason why things like screwdrivers cost $100+ and toilet seats $500+ when you can go to a local store and get them for far less. I'm not passing judgement. I've had the luxury and seeing how private industry and government works. I guess that's what makes the world the way it is and life interesting....

Well back in the day the A-10 could carry 2 ALQ-131 ECM pods IIRC. Also 2 to 4 AIM9L AtA missiles which were all aspect heat seeking missiles. It may be slow, but it has a tight turning radius, but the rate of turn is low due to low speed. It still carries chaff and flares. Perhaps if they spent the money to give it the most advanced ECM protection available and perhaps a laser anti missile defense system it could remain viable in a medium to semi-high threat environment. Question is will the Air Force willingly spend money to do this and will congress fund it. IIRC there was a time when the Army wanted to get the A-10's from the Air Force. The Army used to control air power, but after WW2 the Air Force became a separate branch of the armed services and part of the divorce had it that the Army would be stripped of airpower. Legend has it as a consolidation prize the Army was granted permission to operate the newfangled contraption known as helicopters. If the Air Force knew the Army would someday arm helecopters and create attack helecopters, they would have lobbied congress to forbid the Army from operating helecopters too.

I just saw the video of it in action. If you or opponent have exposed infantry nearby when it operates will they suffer casualties? Judging from the video it doesn't look like it will mot be pleasant to be anywhere near a tank when that thing does off. You would also think that in a MOUT operation where it would be desirable to have infantry close by supporting armor that a system like Arena could complicate things. Can you turn Arena off? If so in real life and if BS will cause casualties to infantry nearby, can you turn it off in the game?

Someone was once quoted as saying the A-10 is nothing more than a modern day version of a Stuka. So long as it operates where we have air dominance it will do fine. If that goes away it could become very challenging for the A-10. I think its not going away anytime soon, regardless of what the Air Force wants.

I think someone mentioned this is the past and the general response was no they didn't want to give players a precise way of measuring LOS. They want a "unknown" factor instead of giving the player too much control and knowledge of what you can and can't see. In a recent h2h game when I was measuring LOS and targeting based on what I could target I was under the assumption that an area/sector was un-target able and my opponent could move units there unimpeded. I was pleasantly surprised when he rolled tanks through that area and got blasted by my tanks who "could not target" the area.

As a side note I seen some who believe the SSN is the real "capital warship" these days. I don't really know if its true, but some say the ASW protection around a carrier battlegroup is like swiss cheese and if we ever get to a situation where unrestricted submarine warfare occurs those carriers are toast. You hear that a best weapon against another attack sub is an attack sub and carrier battle groups and other high value ships have SSNs protecting them.

There is a lot of info out there on the AK variants and the differences between the 7.62x39 and 5.45x39. I wouldn't call the M4 unreliable. As mentioned by OP training is a very big component in this discussion. I would also say the skill and level of education also plays a big role. Its one thing to issue an M4 to a volunteer military like we have in the West. It may be a completely different proposition to issue an AR/M4 type weapon to a peasant army composed of illiterate conscripts. IMO the huge drawback of the AK is the sights are not as good and the magazine release is nowhere near as smooth and that has implications.

That depends on the individual. I've seen many vets get very emotional about this subject.

Interesting...I didn't intend to say the M4 is obsolescence. It was more of the military after much effort has not found a replacement.

Very nice. Black is beautiful in my book. Firearms tends to be a very personal thing and oftentimes emotional subject. I know some with vast experience who if they had to pick just one would unhesitating pick an AK-47, while others would stick with a AR/M4. I like both, but I'm just into guns and like all sorts of guns. The heat problem is an issue, but if you've seen any of the stuff on the smart metals in development you have to think DARPA and others are looking into some metal that can overcome that. I also wouldn't be surprised if someone is looking into utilizing the heat generated by bullets. Heat is energy and if that could be recycled back into usable energy it could get interesting like perhaps an outlet on the gun to recharge electronics from stored energy.

I've also seen reports that during the Iraq conflict, insurgents were avoiding engaging combat units as they knew they were difficult targets and going after the rear echelon troops who were less well trained in small unit combat and until corrected not nearly as proficient with handling weapons. There really was no front line.

Case less ammo would seem like a worthwhile endeavor as it would save weight, but I guess what the army has tested isn't going to be deployed anytime soon. I saw some stuff on a SAW replacement that used case less ammo and those who did use it really liked it. http://archive.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20120521/NEWS/205210317/Caseless-ammo-could-cut-25-lbs-from-gear A while back there was an article about "smart bullets" probably won't see this anytime soon, but is interesting: http://www.engadget.com/2014/07/13/darpa-smart-bullet-demo/ I guess we won't be seeing infantry using laser/gauss guns or electron magnetic rail guns anytime soon either.

That pretty much sums it up-although that may vary from time to time if I'm not mistaken. In WW2 most casualties were from artillery and shrapnel, while I've seen stats that in Viet-Nam over 50% of the casualties were caused by bullets. I have no idea what the recent conflicts stack up. IED's are probably up there, but some of the intense urban fighting I would guess bullets caused a lot of the casualties. One instructor said who trained both military and SWAT said you could always tell who was training by just looking at the shoot houses that would be built/rebuilt by the Seebees. If it was riddled with bullets the military was training. If there were just a few holes that were tightly grouped the SWAT team was training. I like the infantry stuff in Combat Mission so I'll see how infantry vs infantry in a built up area works out. I suspect its going to be short and bloody.

The M-14 refuses to just fade away... https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-rise-and-fall-and-rise-of-americas-last-battle-rifle-cd8d1754bae9 Just think if this happened: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-fn-fal-was-almost-americas-battle-rifle-5186bdbda998

The most amazing thing I see when look at the US soldiers is the their main battle rifle-a descendant of the M-16 which is over 50 years old. In that time the Air Force has gone through 2 generations of fighters and the Navy a couple generations of ships. NATO and other countries have changed their main battle rifle in that time too. If this trend continues and there is nothing I know of that is going to replace the M-4 we could still be seeing US soldiers carrying a M-16 descendant when Shock Force 3, 4 a and 5 come out. When you stop and think about it in the period between the Civil War and World War 2 we went from muzzle loading muskets to SMG/bolt action rifles/semi-auto riles and machine guns. Imagine what WW2 would have been like had soldiers been using Civil War weaponry. The M-16 is on a path to meet if not exceed that time period and its not inconceivable to see it in general use for 75 to 100 years. Below is an interesting article about the M-4 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-armys-main-rifle-failed-during-a-deadly-afghan-battle-57c055acc76b With all the advancements its astounding the US Military can't seem to find a replacement. Case less ammo looked promising, but don't hear much about that anymore. I would think a gas piston system using the 300AC blackout round would be a good contender, but once again I don't see that happening anytime soon. I guess you could say the same thing for the Russian main battle rifle.

Non combatants would be a very welcome addition. As for AI concerns why not add some random number generator routine that scatters them in all directions in panic, makes them go prone and cower or run to cover? Police, ambulances, journalists could also add a lot of atmosphere. Aside from the additional work that would go into this, sounds like BF may want to avoid any controversy that may arise. Nothing really new with civies. Anyone remember the 90s game Syndicate when it first came out? These days you have Grand Theft Auto so anything BF did would be tame compared to whats out there. I don't play COD or ARMA, but do they have non combatants? Perhaps BF might consider a limited software developer kit download so some of the more creative types out there could come up with things like civies, burning buildings and other stuff.

My niece is asking where the female grunts are? :eek:

ahhh much better. I think I used the hotkey to turn on the Nvidia, but it reverted back when I exited CM I am getting odd black squares and some black areas in the Mace. I'm downloading the latest drivers, but it may also be a mod I'm using. I'd still say my desktop is slightly better, but now that the 840M is set to be the default video on my laptop its a close second to my desktop.

Tanks for the correction

My panzerfaust that brought down the house was the second battle of the Scottish Corridor campaign iirc. This was pre 3.11/3.0 update. Once again I can't recall with 100% certainty, but the building may have already been damaged. Never seen fire from building and wonder if that's even possible in game turns. I see vechicles burn and smoke, but I'm using mods for that effect. Perhaps its possible for someone to create a flame/smoke/damage mod for buildings...

The Witcher and other RPGs are like that too. I like violent dark movies from time to time, but can separate that from real life so I don't feel guilt. Same for wargames. I have friends an co-workers who try to do the guilt trip for my love of guns and conservative/libertarian views. Doesn't phase me one bit. I've reached a point in life where I have a view there is good and evil and sometimes you have to confront evil and that unfortunately may result in violence.

Well now that we're dreaming why not like Black Sea and make it the ground component of DCS world. Never gunna happen in my lifetime....

One thing tanks are still very good for is use on unruly civilians rioting and protesting. Of course there are political considerations and you'll probably want to cut off all internet access, twitter feeds and jam cell phones before sending them in. In many parts of the world this is still a viable option for strong arm rulers.

I always thought if the Army would take the lower hull of an Abrams and use it as the basis for mounting the GAU30 used on the A-10 you would have a winning weapon. It would demolish any light vechicle/APC, be pretty effective against a MBT-could mount a ATGM or crew could use Javelins. Structures and infantry would be shredded by the GAU-30 and you could haul a good load of ammo. You could also mount some high tech mechanically operated .50 cal sniper system for precision use.