Thewood1

In iron mode, stop and take a look at how many ? markers you get on a large moving enemy. You can get 5-10 different ? markers over a couple turns for each enemy unit. Your ammo would run low pretty quickly.

Again, I'll point out that the recent track record of hype around Russian AFV development that has completely fizzled lends to the skepticism.

I suspect that there might not be a distinction between rubble from different types of buildings from a cover standpoint. From a concealment standpoint, probably not a huge amount in real life.

Does the US still use the SMAW with a thermobaric round?

I am little concerned we take promotional material too literally at times. I know there not is info out there on actual capabilities on a lot of Russian and Chinese hardware, but I assume most reasonable people realize the promotional material is put together by marketing people to, at a minimum, make the product look as good as possible. edited...missed an important word

You can start reading here... http://community.battlefront.com/topic/117749-down-load-speeds-100kbs/page-12 On the next page BFC claims the issue is fixed. Seems like it is not. I sure hope its resolved by the time Bulge is released.

A number of people had some issues downloading on release and I have seen some since. BFC said at one time the issue had been discovered and fixed. I am not so sure that it is completely fixed..

Man if you edited that, I can't imagine what the original looked like.

African or European?

I am no expert, but is that a pretty big shot trap?

The Indians have been withholding some of their side of the investments because of a bunch of issues with the T-50. It really doen't say anything about the aircraft. They all go through painful development processes. But it does say something about the type of deal that arranged with India. Lot of risk on both sides.

Look, this article isn't 10 years old. It is one year old. It is by a fairly respected journalist in a very respected newspaper. They are not 100% accurate all the time. But they are usually directionally correct. You have to admit the Russian Army went through some very bad times in the 90's and early 2000's. It takes a long time to fix major doctrinal and personnel issues. Just saying they are going to fix them is only the start. You don't change the corruption issues overnight. 50% conscript/50% volunteer is great progress, but still a long way from being where they wanted to be. Discharging 1M people is the way they got to the 50% number. Now the hard part begins...recruiting the next 50% for volunteers. The equipment is the easy part. And most of the discussion around Russian Army development is under different economic conditions. Most of the defense budget was/is driven by energy income. With the price of oil bottomed out, Russia will struggle to pay the army's growth and import technology. That $90B defense budget won't look very good if the economy doesn't improve. It took literally $100's of billions of dollars a year through the 80's and into the 90's for the US DoD to transition itself to where the Russian military wants to be. It will not happen overnight, or in 10 years. People can fantasize all they want about fancy new tanks, airplanes, and ships, but fielding them and the people to use them takes a lot of money, time, and infrastructure. It takes decades to put that infrastructure back in place.

Washington Post is not exactly a Russian-bashing rag. It is known as one of the more thorough news organizations.

OK, I'll find some others.

A decent article from the post... http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russias-military-is-the-largest-in-the-region-but-it-isnt-the-same-force-as-in-soviet-times/2014/03/10/b3b955b8-a48c-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html Russian tankers average less than 30 training rounds a year compared to 150 for other countries.

He used twice more than anyone else. Take a look at my post a few pages ago and I wasn't even exhaustive. He was the initial one claiming bias. When in glass houses...

murica

OK ran this 5 times and on the 4th, one of the US tanks starts rotating as soon as it gets three ?, but no solid contacts. There were no laser warnings, but all other US tanks were engaged. The one M1 rotated its turret 3-4 seconds before having a solid contact. But again, it already had three ? and all its platoon-mates were engaged. I am going to run it a few more times on the Russian side. If anyone from BFC wants the save, PM me with an email address. Its almost 5Mb so I am not going to upload it.

I guess that is what I am getting at...how many of these systems would you need.

I don't mind misspellings...just people pointing them out...with misspellings.

Yeah, but I thought that wasn't deployed yet.

Ha...maybe the person that says some instead of someone shouldn't point that out....or maybe its start vs starts. I can't tell.

What I have seen is the turret will slew if the ? is on the way to being ID'ed as a positive. I never timed it.

Yeah...there are literally tons of Tomahawks in VLS systems, but they can't theoretically fire at a moving ship.

But the laser designater and the person running it aren't cheap either. Precision rounds are pretty expensive and they still not very common. That is why you still have tanks and missles.