MOS:96B2P
-
Posts
4,589 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
92
Posts posted by MOS:96B2P
-
-
43 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
But if Israel decides to make an a example with Iran we could see a repeat of something like:
“Boys will be boys!”
-
3 hours ago, Astrophel said:
Hamas is being played by somebody and for what - a villa or two in switzerland would be my guess.
Hamas is a tool of Iran as is Hezbollah. Maybe Hezbollah will join the war next and open a new front. Iran's stated goal is the destruction of Israel.
-
22 minutes ago, sburke said:
the moderate GOP spectrum to put someone forward the dems think they can work with and garner bipartisan support that would eliminate the power of the MAGA faction. Unfortunately a path to electing a speaker without dem support looks to be a difficult road. Maybe that is the straw we need to force them to start working together.
+1 This is the only productive path forward I can think of. It also needs to happen rather quick. A few weeks maybe.
Just for the record..... @sburke I'd vote for you no matter which of the two major US parties you ran in. You are the embodiment of reason and bipartisanship.
After you won maybe you would consider tariffs against New Zeeland? There seems to be an inordinately keen forum member there who may not like dogs........
.
-
14 minutes ago, danfrodo said:
I am sure there's still lots of GOPers that want gov't to work and would be willing to negotiate and find common ground. Sadly, working w dems (the great satan) will be used against any GOPer in a primary. They would be castigated as a RINO and a weakling and a collaborationist by some extremist usurper candidate.
There are lots of moderates on both sides who want to negotiate and find common ground. Once a week on Fox News one Democrat and one Republican come on Bret Baier's show and discuss bi-partisan legislation (or some issue) they are working on together. In fact I think the time block is called Common Ground. You should check it out sometime.
So if these politicians can go on the news and talk about their bi-partisan efforts (on satanic Fox News of all places
) there is hope. These are moderates attempting to do the right thing. This is a good sign and should be encouraged. I think it is really up to the moderates to put this House back in order. See what I did there??
Then weapons can continue to flow to Ukraine and Putin will be sad.
-
24 minutes ago, JonS said:
You seem inordinately keen to blame the Democratic Party for the results of the Republican's internal disarray. Why is that?
I don't think you can blame anyone for the Republican's internal disarray except the far right Republicans.
I thought that maybe the moderates of both parties could use this as an opportunity to come together, compromise and govern. I'm not sure what happens now.......... I'm guessing you probably prefer New Zealand's parliamentary system of government better...
-
12 minutes ago, dan/california said:
I was about trust, anybody who was paying attention lost all faith in McCarthy after January 6th. He hade broken numerous deals agreements with the Dems after that. People were frantic to read the bill because he hadn't even told them in advance he was doing a more or less clean CR. They would have been crazy to pass it WITHOUT reading it. And then he offered them nothing on the motion to vacate.
I agree they should ALWAYS read the bills, resolutions etc. That, by itself, is a good reason to delay.
-
24 minutes ago, Ultradave said:
They delayed things long enough that they could actually READ what was in the bill, instead of immediately voting on an unseen bill. Either that or trust McCarthy, and they already have experience at that.
That's not obstructing the passage. Obstructing the passage would have been not voting for it, in which case it would not have passed. Not even close.
Looked into it a bit. The bill was 71 pages long. That could take some time to read and hopefully was read, at least by staffers.
Also found: House Democrats attempted to stall a vote on the CR — which contained the majority of their demands, with the exception of funding for Ukraine — in the hopes the Senate would move first on its own clean CR.
So maybe the delay was also because of the lack of funding for Ukraine. That is a pretty good reason to delay if you think Ukraine funding can get added somehow.
Also of interest: Far-right members of the House Republican Conference have been threatening to oust House Speaker Kevin McCarthy if he relied on Democrats to pass a short-term spending bill. But none of those members brought up the so-called motion to vacate on Saturday.
I wonder if another, not so noble, reason for the delay was to give more time/opportunity to the far right to go through with their threat and oust McCarthy. Especially after it was known McCarthy was going to use Democrat votes.
53 minutes ago, Ultradave said:Obstructing the passage would have been not voting for it, in which case it would not have passed. Not even close.
It would not be good for the Democrats politically to vote against the CR once it was brought to the floor. However, if the moderate, Ukraine supporting Republicans, were never able to bring the vote to the floor because of internal chaos / ouster of McCarthy it would be a big Democrat political win in an election year. There would be NO vote (they were hours away from a shutdown). The Republicans would get the blame for a government shutdown in a very contentious election year. Maybe the Democrats wanted to give the far right Republicans a little more time to screw things up?
If the moderates on both sides would work together and sideline the far left and far right extremists the world would be a better place. The Democrats could have voted with the far right anytime down the road to get rid of McCarthy. They didn't have to vote with the far right yesterday. An opportunity was missed with this ouster. I think its fair to say we are in a worse situation today than we were a few days ago.
-
5 minutes ago, billbindc said:
I would respectfully suggest that the guy who made a budget deal during the debt ceiling negotiations and reneged on it, or the guy who intentionally separated out Ukraine aid and attached it to very controversial border legislation, or the guy who could have won many Democratic 'present' votes with small concessions and chose not to is perhaps not the best source for what happened yesterday. For instance, pretty much every characterization of the CR bill above is wrong.
Anyway, the king is dead and any of his likely replacements (Emmer, Scalise, McHenry) have been fairly strong supporters of Ukraine. As I understand it, there was a deal ready to go before McCarthy mucked it up that is still on the table for a clean vote. As a one vote motion to vacate is likely off the table for any new Speaker, I suspect we'll see that aid come through forthwith barring the usual caveats about bad bounces, etc.
I'll look into it some more in case he was not accurate. However, I would have expected the interviewer to call him out on any inaccuracies. She was not giving him an easy softball interview. I don't think she was a fan.
I'm pretty sure a House Democrat pulled a fire alarm just before the CR vote. I've seen video of this.
So, can we agree that at least this one characterization is correct?
-
6 minutes ago, sburke said:
Problem is the one thing Gaetz was right about is McCarthy has proven he is not trustworthy and this whole debacle is result of a deal he made to get the speakership.
But now he was using Democrat votes. To counter the Freedom caucus he would need to work with Democrats. If you care about doing the right thing isn't at least worth a try? If it didn't work out the Democrats could have voted with the far right in two or three weeks and ousted McCarthy. Instead the Democrats and far right voted together and here we are. They didn't even try. I guess its more about politics and party power even with something as serious as the Ukraine war in the balance.
-
19 hours ago, Ultradave said:
Meanwhile the budget clock is ticking, and no Ukraine aid bill until there is a Speaker (for those not in the US, no business can be conducted until a Speaker is elected).
DaveTHIS!! I should have added this in my above post.
If only the Democrats had used the great opportunity they had once McCarthy was reliant on using Democrat votes. They could have at tried it................ but now the clock is ticking.
-
1 hour ago, billbindc said:
McCarthy did a lot worse than that. He actually attacked Dems on Sunday on Face the Nation claiming they tried to shut down the government when it is only open bc Democrats provided 2/3rds of the votes.
This wasn’t a murder, it was a suicide.
Hmmm, ........ It might not have been murder but it was at least assisted suicide.
I read a transcript of the interview. In the interview McCarthy was very pro-Ukraine. He did say the Democrats tried to obstruct the passage of the continuing resolution bill. He went on to provide examples of how the Democrats attempted to obstruct.
Politically it would make sense for the Democrats to want the CR to not pass if the Republicans got the blame for it. Democrats would love that, especially during an election year. But McCarthy went against Republican internal rules and used Democrat votes to get the CR passed. Good job RIGHT???
If Democrats had voted down the CR they probably would have gotten some of the blame for a government shut down. So they also cared about the good of the country and voted for the CR. Heroes all around right???
Now McCarthy who is pro-Ukraine, as are most Republicans, should be easy to work with to get funding for Ukraine. Especially now that he has to rely on Democrats to pass stuff he wants. What a great opportunity to attempt to do what is right and negotiate and compromise. The moderates (Democrats & Republicans) could have come together and been able to govern without the far left "The Squad" and the far right "The Freedom Caucus". But not one Democrat voted to keep McCarthy in the Speaker Job and facilitate the process of governing. The desire to watch the spectacle of moderate Republicans fighting against far right Republicans in the House was to great an opportunity to pass up, especially in an election year.
If you read the below it does seem like Democrats were not attempting to facilitate a vote on the CR. Why did one Democrat pull the fire alarm just prior to the vote?
It might not have been murder but it was at least assisted suicide of an opportunity to work together, compromise and maybe govern from the center.
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: Well, well I wasn't sure it was gonna pass. You want to know why? Because the Democrats tried to do everything they can, not to let it pass.
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: Okay, so let's walk. Let's walk through what actually happened. First of all, the Democrats stood up and did dilatory actions asked to adjourn. So it was that supporting to adjourn? Then they used the Magic Minute. They went as far as pulling the fire alarm not to try to get the bill to come up. Look Democrats stick together, but they did not want the bill. They did not, they were willing to let government shutdown for our military not to be paid. No, I wasn't. We're going to make sure we keep it open while we finish the job we're supposed to do.
-
12 hours ago, WimO said:
At the age of 18 Kortenhaus was a member of 4.Kompanie, Panzerregiment 22 of the 21.Panzer Division. His two volume history written in German in the 1950s
I'm sure Kortenhaus offers some valuable first hand memories and a German perspective on these events (I should probably get this book). It might be useful to consider how he came across all the information he used to write two entire volumes on the 21st Panzer Division. He probably could not have personally experienced all two volumes worth of information. As an 18 year old in a combat zone I would suspect his personal experience was confined to a small sliver of the big picture. Probably he was mostly consumed and focused on surviving the combat his platoon was involved in. So, unless he was an 18 year old that worked in the Tactical Operations Center (TOC) of the 21st Panzer and was privy to the conversations and decisions of the senior command staff I wouldn't think he would have much personal knowledge on the events outside his platoon/company.
Then later (probably about 10 years later) after the war he wrote the books. He must have relied on other sources to fill in all the information outside his platoon and company experience. It would be useful to know the reliability of the sources he used that contradicts multiple other sources. Maybe the other sources he used are right or partially right but I would not automatically assume they are.
There are several other forum members that know about German units. Off the top of my head @George MC and @RockinHarry come to mind. They might have some insight into your dilemma.
You do good work. Your final product will be a great contribution to the CM community.
-
2 hours ago, Ultradave said:
It's differentiated between those who went to Airborne School and got their wings, which is certainly an accomplishment and something to be proud of, to those of us who served on "jump status" in a paratrooper unit. We have members male and female from the 82d, 101st, and 11th Abn Divisions and a couple of the independent brigades, plus Green Berets, plus even a couple Marine Force Recon guys. All paratroopers. Oh, and one USAF Close Combat Team guy (I think that's what they used to call it - the guys who jump in first and set up the drop zone for us - you want to talk about guys with big you know whats). Can't find what they call it now.
Was it Pathfinders?
-
The below was taken from the above linked Tactical Notebook Substack.
The empty phrases reffered to below ring very true. Many times reading US Army and USMC manuals I've come across sentences like these and thought ...................... but how does that translate into the best course of action for this problem I'm dealing with?
he manual focuses on static definitions and control measures, not useful procedures. When it doesn’t know what to say, it reverts to empty phrases that tell the squad leader nothing. “The assault is launched aggressively…” How? “Assault fire is characterized by violence, volume, and accuracy…” When? “[Marines] put themselves in a position of advantage…” Where?
Some more interesting information taken from the article.
For fire and movement, the standard should be “close to within grenade range (20 meters) of the enemy position without getting shot.” Performance steps should include “suppress until there is no return fire,” “move only when suppression is firing,” “select and move from one covered position to another,” and “avoid moving outside mutual support (behind a building or over a crest).”
A well-trained enemy is dangerous at all ranges, but when his fighting position is visible, it can be continually suppressed by well-coordinated fire and movement—two fire teams shooting while one moves. The priorities are (1) find the enemy, (2) smother with suppressive fire, and then (3) move forward using covered terrain.
Don't be in a hurry to die.........
four assaults with six or more casualties were impatient, rushing to poor positions without suppression.
When on defense Target Arcs plus the Hide command.
The biggest advantage of a long assault was that the enemy usually fired early and confirmed their position, weapons, and numbers to the assaulting squad. Most casualties inside 50 meters occurred when the enemy position was not known—or had moved—and the assaulting squad was surprised.
-
On 8/28/2023 at 7:16 PM, MHW said:
Brendan McBreen, a retired USMC Lieutenant Colonel, ran 300 squad assaults in CMSF and drew insights from them. McBreen, who has 25 years of service as an infantry officer, found that the service's manuals and training materials give only vague and inadequate guidance about how to conduct a squad assault. He used CMSF to run a series of tests, matching a rifle squad against different defenders, and tallied up the results.
+1 Interesting stuff. Thanks for posting.
@Bil Hardenberger you may already know about this CM related substack from USMC Lieutenant Colonel, Brendan McBreen (retired). But if you don't I thought you might find it interesting.
-
4 hours ago, George MC said:
IIRC the 'immobilization' mechanic does not just replicate a vehicle getting stuck in mud or such like but also a breakdown. Though I'd struggle to find a quote from the developers confirming that, just a point I vaguely recall in a discussion a while back.
This is also my long time understanding. IMO it would be useful if the UI read immobilized/breakdown or something similar in these situstions.
-
7 hours ago, 6plus1SMC said:
Hi
I have had the dubious pleasure to have been issued the Flammpanzerwaregn in a few scenarios.
They never fires a single burst - they could never get close enough ( as I understand it, the range is about 30m on each side). In the few instances the vehicle got close to living ememies, they where allready surendering to the infantry.
I can only see a use of if, in, in some rare situation, it could get behind bunkers, even so - I think it would be very hard to keep alive long enough to get there.
Am I missing something on how to use the Flammpnazerwargen?
IMO they are most useful for finishing off a suppressed OpFor and/or through a building wall (the flame will penetrate a solid wall). You could use a tank for the same purpose but a flamethrower is very effective and will not harm friendly troops nearby. So if you have stubborn OpFor in a position that won't break and run who are taking a long time to die suppress and burn will often work. I usually use the target briefly command.
And just because....
Even better ................. a flamethrowing tank....
-
Yes, the ability to breach an obstacle belt would be very useful. It is possible with a flail tank in CMBN and CMFI. But no breaching equipment in the modern titles. Mines and the breaching of mine belts also feature in current events out of Ukraine.
Just a simple mine plow tank or roller tank in Combat Mission Cold War would allow for more acurate recreations of many training missions at the NTC.
-
57 minutes ago, kb6583 said:
Playing War Without Mercy as the US. It's a huge scenario of course, which means I seem to have a goodly number of on map organic 60mm mortars. Since I see they have a range slightly longer than 1,000 meters, that means that they can range large areas of the map, including the two cities I'm supposed to capture. I mention all of this as background. So I've got them set up as far back as I can while still keeping those cities in range. I have got the mortar platoon leaders in contact with their company cdrs and the company cdrs in contact with the bn cdr. I try and call in arty fire with a company cdr (who can see the target area). "Out of contact". I try the bn cdr - "out of contact". I bring up the platoon leaders to call in the mortars in - "Out of contact". I mean, do I have to bring these mortars really up close and personal with their platoon leaders, et al, so to speak, to make sure that they're "In contact"?
Out of contact means a C2 problem. Are the mortars in contact with their chain of command? To fire indirect on map mortars must be within close visual C2 (12 action spots) of their chain of command or within voice C2 (6 action spots) of any authorized HQ, XO or FO team or within 16 meters (2 action spots) of a radio equipped vehicle.
Click on the mortar team and look in the unit information panel in the user interface at the bottom of the screen. There are three boxes for the selected units C2. At least one of those three boxes should have an icon in it for visual close, visual far, radio ect. If all three boxes are empty the selected unit is out of C2 (contact).
Also, clicking Alt Z, on the keyboard, will show C2 lines between units.
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
In short:
1. Putin doesn't run for President next year and goes into retirement
2. A replacement candidate of the plotter's choosing will be groomed as Putin's replacement for the 2024 elections (which will, of course, be rigged as usual).
3. Putin cedes effective control of the war over to the plotters
We should see signs of it fairly soon, especially #3, if this is what happened.
Steve
#3 is very interesting.
If the behind the scenes coup plotters are pragmatic, materialistic people yearning to get back to their wealthy lifestyle this war could end with a voluntary Russian withdrawl. Instead of Ukraine expending the people, equipment. money and damage to infrastructure to force them out. Of course, I guess its possible the behind the scenes people are warmongering expansionists (hope not).
There has been some talk that the Ukrainian offensive has not been as aggressive or productive as some had hoped. I'm willing to believe its all part of their strategic plan. And now I'm also wondering if the Ukrainians found out, or at least suspected, a Russian coup was in the works. Maybe the Ukrainians at some point decided to slow walk the offensive pending the outcome? No reason to make all the sacrafices to drive the Russians out if they leave on their own.
-
Do we know where Putin is currently located. I read several pages back that he left Moscow on an airplane in the direction of St. Petersburg. But the plane was thought to have landed near some large estate he owns between Moscow and St. Petersburg. Has he returned to the center of power in Moscow? Has he been seen in public?
If the coup was successful and Putin was forced to make concessions to the coup leaders what are the unannounced concessions? Would the behind the scenes coup leaders want to cut their losses in Ukraine and get out? Maybe go back to their rich lifestyle of banking, fancy homes in the west, traveling abroad and sending their kids to western schools?
The Russian Federation status quo is not sustainable.
-
3 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
Say you need to hunt but the terrain is too open you need to go fast hunt by itself is too slow. You wish to cancel moves upon full contact but only hunt does that. You can drag a hunt way point on top of the fast waypoint the move after that is fast again. You can do the same with walk through a forest drag a hunt way point on top of any other waypoint. This way you can blend different modes.
Hmm, kind of interesting. I've never tried this before. May play around with this.
-
-
On the attack.
.
) there is hope. These are moderates attempting to do the right thing. This is a good sign and should be encouraged. I think it is really up to the moderates to put this House back in order. See what I did there?? 
Israel War Thread
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
+1. Thanks for posting. Very interesting article.
It helps to explain some of the videos with the IDF taken off guard. It seems in one facility the IDF soldiers just locked the front gate and went to bed for the night. Then slept in the next morning? The terrorists blew open the unguarded front gate, entered into fortified buildings, through unlocked doors, and shot many of the soldiers while the soldiers were dressed in nothing more than their shorts and T-shirts. Some soldiers who were awake and on duty apparently weren't even armed. Many videos from both sides show these crazy scenes and the sickening aftermaths.
This then partially explains while help was so slow in coming to the (mostly unarmed) civilian communities. How can the soldiers respond to frantic calls for help if they themselves are at the mercy of terrorists inside their own facilities? THEIR OWN FACILITIES!
I hope the surviving soldiers are now awake, focused and have weapons prior to going into Gaza.