IronCat60

"Kill Bill" movies. When she takes on the Rocket 88's in that limb chopping festival! You know a black market prosthetic dealer is going to make a fortune. That's if the Rocket's Medical Benefits covers that. Bruce Lee in "Enter the Dragon". "Be like water". Also there is a great parody of that film on a old 70's movie titled "Kentucky Fried Movie". Then there is Blade Runner where Roy Batty is just plain screwing with Blade Runner Deckard. Yep he shows what a combat model replicant can do. Seven Samurai. Black and white 1954 flick but great movie all around. This movie was the inspiration for the western "Magnificent Seven" The Highlander movie before it got ridiculous with the sequels. And let's not forget Clint Eastwood in Pale Rider. Clint goes to town on a bunch of bully's with a axe handle. "Nothing beats a good piece of hickory". Thanks for posting the Mongo clip from "Blazing Saddles". Alex Karras was perfect in that part.

Too funny! Reminds me of that old song "Beep, Beep" by the Playmates. "Beep beep beep beep His horn went beep beep beep While riding in my Cadillac What to my surprise A little Nash Rambler was following me About one third my size The guy musta wanted to pass me up As he kept on tooting his horn I'll show him that a Cadillac is not a car to scorn Beep beep beep beep His horn went beep beep beep"

Hey there Phantom Captain, first off let me say you have a proud linage in your family! Wow Merrill's Marauders, I have read about those guy's exploits and they were tough as nails and then some! Ok to answer your question. I taught MOUT for awhile and in real life it was the 2/All/2 rule for clearing buildings. This was applied if you could not work all the buildings from the top downwards, the ideal way to clear a building. With four teams work your way down both sides (2) of the street covering the movement of the bounding team from both sides in a criss-cross over watch. Once the bounding team has entered the next building they work their way up to the top of the building (All floors) Now from the building your team is in you should be able to see into two (2) other buildings and recon the floors by observation or direct fire. If the buildings across the way are taller than yours that warrants a small team to check out those floors. Also if a building has sturdy construction that direct fire cannot penetrate or a maze of rooms then that too needs further inspection. By observing into two buildings you can narrow down the ones that require more attention and basically skip the ones that are observed empty or do not return fire when fired upon and get down the street quicker. Machine guns are always bringing up the rear and stay on both sides of the street with whatever team is the covering force. Other machine guns should also be kept at a distance and orientated to fire down the length of the street and parallel with the axis of advance. This includes the route friendly forces are advancing up and the next street over on the left and right. This is used to prevent lateral reinforcement of enemy positions by blocking fire up the streets parallel with the axis of advance. As the game has open floors and the bad guys generally are not shy about firing at anything in range this should hopefully help you out.

Thank you for your in depth reply panzersaurkrautwerfer! I found it very educational to hear it from the treadheads mouth. I guess that I recall the early M1's and the teething problems it had during my time at Ft Hood. As far as the friend who is a Stryker computer tech, he was a 19D so I will be talking to him about some of the "stories" he has reported. After all 19D's are the redheaded stepchild of the armor and infantry community. And the tanker Master Gunners were never so forth coming with the amount of information on the rounds available to the main gun. Your wealth of information puts everything into a new perspective. We even shared the info about the then experimental sabot round for the Bradley (XM919??) and how in Ballistics Class we theorized and wrote a extra credit thesis on what angle and range that round could penetrate the lower side armor of the T-55 and T-62. The tanker Master Gunners were basically like "105mm, load big shell. Sabot, HEAT. Gun go boom. Load another shell. Machine guns carry lots of bullets. We have laser range finder, you have to guess, ha ha to bad. Turbine engine. Like old Mazda commercial your Bradley goes put-put-put ours goes zoom." Also I went into combat with the 1st Cav Division in Desert Storm and I should have tempered my tirade with the memories of how well the tanks performed in that arena. Yes we were a Task Force Brigade. 2 Companies of tanks and 2 Companies of Infantry. The scouts were out on the flanks and in line with my platoon which was the lead element for the entire division. We had tank Companies on the right and left of the diamond formation and a infantry Company bringing up the rear. As there was no one else in front of us but the bad guys we called ourselves "The Flaming TRP's". That is because I envisioned the tankers talking on the net after initial contact and saying something to the effect "Ok, see that burning Bradley to the right? Don't go over there that's were the minefield starts. See the two burning Bradley's on the left? Careful, that is were the AT Gun is dug in." Once again thank you for that most insightful and well stated rebuttal. I must go now, somewhere a village still needs a idiot.

Ok I did a career in the military. Both Marine Corps and Army. The last part of my gig was a Plt Sgt in Bradley Mechanized Infantry. I am also Bradley Master Gunner Qualified. Just stating that so you know I am not just a village idiot. And yes I know opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one and they all stink. But here is some facts to mull over with a cup of coffee and a good doughnut to provide a balanced breakfast. I have hung out with the tank master gunners on several occasions and I always asked the same question, We support the tanks in close terrain environments but how come the tank has lost the interest, ability and mission capability of supporting the grunt. And how can the armor community continue to glorify a Cold War weapons system without realizing the world it operates in has changed and the tank needs to change to meet these new demands. There is no HE round that can knock out a bunker or devastate a house like the M4 Sherman or the M60A3 tanks. Sure they have a canister round but that is no good for the aforementioned targets that are busy pinning the infantry down. A Sabot round and a Heat Round are lousy substitutes as they make neat holes in targets but lack the explosive power for a area kill radius. HEAT rounds will not go off unless they hit something hard. If fired at troops in the open it will usually skip off the ground and it just buries itself in wet ground. Machine Guns on the tank are not the answer. If they could solve the problem the infantry could extricate themselves. Speaking of extricating themselves.The M1 has gotten heavier and heavier in armor tonnage to were the current bridging equipment and recovery vehicles can barely hold their own against them. It is well documented that M1's fell through bridges in the Middle East or crushed culverts causing the following vehicles to detour to another route. I have a friend who is a civilian technician for the Stryker computer systems. He spent a lot of time in the sandbox and he said it used just piss the Stryker troopers off something fierce when a M1 would bust up a approach route causing them or follow on forces to use a different route that caused delays and a security risk to the forces using the detour. This is another lesson we need to remember is that a lumbering armored behemoth is not the answer in armored warfare. At 70 tons for the current M1 you think we would remember the German monsters of the same weight and fuel consumption needs and what befell them before they could even get into combat. Plus the weight of the M1 has placed more of a restriction on what types of terrain it can operate on thus restricting avenues of approach to a objective. And let us not forget the 4 miles per gallon turbine engine that kicks out 1700 degrees of heat. Time to get rid of that logistical nightmare, After idling for just 8 hours a M1 will suck the fuel tanks dry. That is if the heat build up doesn't cause a engine fire. See funny thing about turbine engines is that they are aircraft engines and the more air flow around the engine the better it cools off. The Army stated they wanted the turbine engine because it could produce the 1500 horsepower needed to power the tank. Guess what ladies and gentlemen the newest iteration of the Leopard tank has a 1650 horsepower engine and OMG it is a diesel engine that sucks a hell of a lot less fuel. Also a diesel engine starts faster than the 40 seconds minimum to get a turbine engine running. So what do you think? Has the military gone off on a tangent with the M1 as a glorious killer of tank hordes and has forgotten the linage of the tank. The British tried the tank vs only tank concept with the Cruiser tanks that had no HE to fight enemy infantry and look where that got them, The humble beginnings of the tank was to support infantry and then it evolved into a balanced machine capable of support and taking on enemy armor as that threat became more prolific on the battlefield. Infantry takes and holds the ground, It defeats threats against it with combined arms supporting it's effort. Right now the tank is missing part of it's potential in contributing to the combined arms doctrine.

Yep FPS in this game is a misnomer and I find it less useful and flexible than standard camera controls.

PanzerShrimp, I can confirm your frustration at no barbwire for the Germans in Quick Battle. Does not matter if you pick attack or assault against them, play German or Russian side, the barbwire just does not exist for the Germans. I have posted this before myself as have other players and the most frustrating part is there seems to be no official statement forth coming from higher up as to the fact they recognize the fault and what they plan on doing to resolve it. Am I wrong about that last paragraph? If so please show me where a valid response from Battlefront exists. And don't get me wrong folks. I respect and admire this gaming company's work and dedication. I do own just about every title and add-on they have produced. It just seems like the ball has been dropped on this play.

Ok first off lets get an idea why this is portrayed this way. The Stryker shows only 60 for the 120mm and the "B" model Stryker is the first to allow firing from a mount within the vehicle instead of dismounting it first. According to material available the Stryker can also carry a 81mm or 60mm mortar in addition to the 120mm and uses one of these additional mortars in a dismounted position. The number of rounds available to this secondary system seem to be a closely guarded secret because I cannot find any clue as to the basic load allotment. So with a well trained crew they can get 16 rounds out in the first minuet and 4 rounds per minuet of sustained fire after that with out over heating the barrel. So that comes out to 12 minuets of total firing time. Usually enough to make the enemy take your intentions seriously. Each Stryker infantry Brigade has a total number of 10 mortar carriers. So if fired in two groups of 5 carriers each, this gives you 24 minuets of fire with time for the carrier group not firing time to pull back and reload. Not to forget the combined total of 60 rounds x 10 carriers gives you 600 rounds in real life Stryker Brigades. But this is assuming all carriers are assigned one target. Something rarely done in real life After the Brigade Commanders mission intent is assigned to each company and the support needed for each company is assigned, how do we come to a rational number of carriers left at Brigade level to assist any fire mission needed to be done. This would be a more realistic approach to fire support. But selecting additional carriers in the game costs points. To allow a true reflection of additional "free support" the game would have to decide in a random manner and I imagine that coding this in to the game would be a monumental task. So for right now we are stuck with a weapons system that relies on numbers to be effective and those numbers are not truly available.

I think for a Soviet Army uniform smock that is pretty much spot on. I am not up on what the proper color is but it looks correct to me. And you have to consider that during the war the material came from several sources. Good job!

I wonder if CMx4 will require you to hit the "brew a cuppa tea", "make a cup of joe" or "take a hit off the schnapps bottle" button to get tired troops back up and going again?

O.k. I have to agree, Naval gunfire in CMBN and Rockets in CMRT is like having M-80's or M-1000's as a kid. It is fun as all get out to blow the hell outta something! Or as the explosives expert in the movie "Uncommon Valor" said "today boys and girls we will learn how high explosives can solve most human problems".

Yep we nicknamed that stunt of packing a crap load of dismounts into one vehicle the "clown car maneuver" when the Lt. would take off with one Bradley to flank the bad guys. Actually there was 14 packed in there because the Plt. Leaders Gunner became the Bradley Commander and a trooper trained to be a Gunner came up into the turret when the Lt. dismounted with 12 and a Squad Leader to help manage the tribe. This was back when the Bradley had individual seating for the dismounts so they used to cram into the passage way from the drivers station to the troop compartment and hold onto whatever. Luckily it was a short trip but the tall guys used to suffer the most. It usually worked to our advantage because the bad guys would expect at least 6 grunts probing their flank if the Bradley was spotted. But a force of 12 showing up and startling them with a large dedicated assault on their flank caused them to think there was possibly another large force on their flank.

Yes we called MLRS a "grid square remover" for a good reason. And if they adhere to real life 1km is danger close especially if using bomblets. The Bomblet patterns have to overlap to be effective. Kinda like watering the lawn and getting the sidewalk wet in the process, And then there is the real life problem of unexploded Bomblets which in Desert Storm were a annoyance to our Bradley's but a definite detour for any wheeled vehicles or trailers pulled by armored vehicles. Thus causing us to slow the advance so we wouldn't leave our tail unprotected.

As a former Bradley M2 IFV Master Gunner I can verify (even with the bench seat modification) that the vehicle carries six. Anyone else in there is insanity with each trooper wearing full battle rattle which takes up room between you and your buddies. But we used to pack 12 in a Bradley if the Plt. Leader was leading a flanking attack and wanted as many Bradley's on the Fire Support Team so it looked like the main effort. The reason Battlefront did it that way is to make joining of cohesive units under a command unit much more simple by having to fudge a little instead of making the player join a lot of fragmented sections together so as to avoid morale detraction's from sections split from their parent unit. If it bothers you just imagine three extra replacements sitting on the floor so they don't get left behind.

Good analogy User1000. The problem the U.S. also had was the problem that still exists today in weapons development. No clear picture of what the goal was and everybody running around like a chicken with no head trying to develop their own pet solution. Quite a few replacement tanks were developed but never made it past the testing phase. Proper ammo storage and stopping the hording of main gun rounds stuffed anywhere in the tank helped tremendously with tank fires. At least Allied tank rounds "fizzled" before going full burn mode unlike German rounds which gave Allied crews more time to bail from the tank. If you look at one of the games splash screens you will notice a M-10 Tank Destroyer with a sandbag structure emplaced on the back deck. As this got my curiosity going I researched and found this was a way TD units kept extra ammo crates stowed outside protected from small arms fire. This way they could stock up on both HEAT and HE as TD's were more and more called upon to fill in as tanks. Whether any Sherman units did this I do not know. I only found info on a TD unit and the exert did not mention which unit And as far as a Sherman speed goes let's quote Oddball from Kelly's Heroes. "This here is Moriarty, he is our mechanical genius. We have the fastest Shermans in the entire European Theater. Forwards or backwards, see we like to get out of trouble as fast as we get into it."

Good one BLSTK. BTW I really get a smile every time I see your avatar. Good old Slim Pickens as Major T. J. "King" Kong riding the bomb. And who can forget Dr. Strangelove getting out of the wheelchair and shouting "Mein Fuhrer, I can valk!".

Say bisu, I cannot get that file to open for the life of me. So I am kind of at a stand still to try and help you with your problem. Is it possible to post a jpg or similiar format?

Yes Vladimir I can agree with you about not starting a AK - M-16 war. Kalashnikov was a brilliant man, I admire his work and salute the life he led. He designed a rifle that has come to be a legend in it's own right. Mozambique has a AK on their flag! No other firearm in the world has earned that status. During my career I put a lot of rounds through just about every type of AK they make. And yes I agree, I was surprised by the AK-74's performance. I could maintain semi-auto fire on target even on the combat course which has variable moving targets. The overall feel of the rifle was the same yet it seemed much more manageable with the weight of the weapon being more comfortable and balanced. When they changed calibers on the AK thus reducing recoil it was a good improvement on a great rifle.

As far as the quick movement goes also consider these troops are not fresh from the barracks but have been in the field for a while. Meals consist of combat rations and sleep is on and off in shifts and usually done in less than comfortable conditions. Also stress on the body and mind from everyday duties and the unknown factors (will I get hit, will I suffer if I do, where is the enemy). All this contributes to the degradation of the soldiers performance levels. For the firearms accuracy, the AK series of rifles are designed more for volume of fire, not accuracy. This can be identified by the fact that the first position for the selector lever from safe is automatic fire. The M-16 series is designed with the opposite in mind. The first position for the selector lever from safe is semi-automatic fire. M-16 sights are aperture and post, more conductive to accurate shooting. The AK series is a notch and post, more conductive to orientation of the weapon. The AK series has a larger bolt assembly and as that mass moves back and forth it throws the balance of the weapon off. The M-16 series has a smaller bolt assembly that does not do this. When I mention AK series I mean both calibers as the overall design and internal parts are nearly identical. For the M-16 series this covers the M-4 Carbine as well, as it has the same overall design and internal parts of this series of rifles and it has the capability to be issued with iron sights that are indicative of all M-16 rifles. Now as for me, when I joined the military we were issued the M-16 (no forward assist for the bolt) and the three prong flash suppressor and "toad sticker" bayonet. By the time my career came to an end we had the M-16A2. A rugged accurate and reliable rifle and it finally had a decent bayonet. To me the M-4 Carbine is foreign and like collecting toy accessories. Collect all five hand guards! Trade 'em with your friends! See if you can be tops in the "rifle envy" contest! And don't get me started on that 9mm joke of a pistol we now have. ;-)

Say there is a oriental gentleman and woman in the string section. I wonder if Ride of the Valkyries played really loud scares them? (Apocalypse Now reference) Did you know Beethoven's 9th Symphony was "Italian-ized" by Mussolini's order and played at his rally's. Also it was a tradition to play it for the Japanese Kamikaze Pilots during the Sake ceremony before take off. This symphony is based on "Ode to Joy", a poem written by Friedrich Schiller in 1785. He wrote the poem as a enthusiastic celebration of the brotherhood and unity of all mankind. It is now the national anthem of the European Union. How fitting for such a magnificent work of music based on a poem of hope and good faith.

Hey bisu, I am trying to replicate your problem to help you solve your problem. Can you tell me the name of the map you are using? It may be a combination of terrain features in that action square along with the building that are greater combined than the "movement points" the tank has available? Willing to help!

Thank you very much User1000 for sharing this video! I love these little treasure troves of knowledge and history. Thanks again for finding and sharing!

As Carl Sagan was fond of saying. "billions and billions".

No the intro song should be "Take off to the Great White North" by Geddy Lee from Rush for Bob and Doug McKenzie movie.

O.k. I tried to find the link that stated there was a special steel helmet designed for tankers to wear and could not find it. It appears the most common used steel helmet was the ordinary M1 pot with the liner removed. In addition, even with the M1 liner removed, the fit was a very tight one. In fact, the fit was so tight that the headset retainer bars had to be jammed under the M1 helmet. Even with this accomplished, the M1 helmet sat very high on the tanker's head and therefore offered little protection around the ears. Despite the practical difficulties, some tankers did choose to wear their steel pot over their tank helmet for at least a little additional protection against shrapnel. Some tankers claimed that they wore their M1 shell over their M1938 tank helmet during inclement weather to keep the rain and drafts from entering the M-1938 ventilation holes (as discussed previously).