Thewood1

I don't know if its meds, cycle of the moon, monthly hormones, etc. but the hyperbole and quantity of posts from JK periodically ramps up until it gets to the point where someone has to question what the heck is going on.  You can tell its heading for peak JK time when you have 50% of the latest ten posts are started by him.

This has been an ongoing issue with JK.  He spams the forums until someone finally steps up and says enough.  He doesn't get the subtle hints so it does have to be a little more direct.  Just trying to catch it before it goes too far and becomes more of a mess, as its very capable of doing.

I don't know if its meds, cycle of the moon, monthly hormones, etc. but the hyperbole and quantity of posts from JK periodically ramps up until it gets to the point where someone has to question what the heck is going on.  You can tell its heading for peak JK time when you have 50% of the latest ten posts are started by him.

I don't know if its meds, cycle of the moon, monthly hormones, etc. but the hyperbole and quantity of posts from JK periodically ramps up until it gets to the point where someone has to question what the heck is going on.  You can tell its heading for peak JK time when you have 50% of the latest ten posts are started by him.

Not really an advocate for a Pacific version of CM...but why does everyone think the Pacific only had jungle warfare.  Battles were fought over a huge expanse of the Pacific and Asian regions.  Battles were fought in terrain not very different from parts of Europe.  Even on some "jungle" islands, large battles were fought over open spaces, towns, and airfields.   One of the largest urban battles of the war was fought in Manila.  The US forces would be almost the same as whats in CMFI.
Again, not advocating a Pacific version because of commercial concerns.  But for a bunch of people thinking they are students of World War 2, you seem to not know a lot about a huge part of the war.  Just look up some of the battles in the Philippines in 1942 and in 1944/45.  At CM's scale, there are some battles that would be great for CM to simulate, especially in 1942.  

I will say this, its not quantity that counts.  JK posts a lot of stuff, but not all useful.  It seems to come in waves where he is literally 80% of the top 10-15 posts on any given forum.  Some of it game-related, some not.  When you take the approach of quantity over quality, you are going to get dinged by people eventually.  Frankly, I don't think I have looked at a JK-started post in years. 
I have given this advice in the past to JK...when you stumble across something using that great tool called google, wait 24 hours and then revisit it and see if its still something useful.  And I mean useful, versus just interesting to you.

I will say this, its not quantity that counts.  JK posts a lot of stuff, but not all useful.  It seems to come in waves where he is literally 80% of the top 10-15 posts on any given forum.  Some of it game-related, some not.  When you take the approach of quantity over quality, you are going to get dinged by people eventually.  Frankly, I don't think I have looked at a JK-started post in years. 
I have given this advice in the past to JK...when you stumble across something using that great tool called google, wait 24 hours and then revisit it and see if its still something useful.  And I mean useful, versus just interesting to you.

"The kind of reaction times we see in those simulated Abrams would be correct under the assumption that the US Army has developed a system that tracks potential threats in real time and then takes control of the vehicles from their human operators to ensure that the Abrams offers its strongest aspect to the incoming missile. "
My understanding is that LWS on tanks already does this.  If a laser targeting is detected, the turret is automatically oriented to the threat and smoke is discharged.  It can be overridden through a quick switch, but I saw a demonstration of it and its how the T-90 works in CMSF.  But that is only for laser.  There is no threat detection for IR or wire guided ATGM missiles, except radar-based AMP.

"power grid is offline"
Useless fear mongering and drivel.  In the US, there are thousands of power plants and tens of thousand of substations, etc.  The majority of these run on SCADA and control systems isolated from the web and outside connections.  Any cyber attack might be able to take a couple power plants down for a short period or isolate regions from the interconnections, but it is darned close to impossible to bring the entire national grid down.  The worst that can happen is hitting the right node at the right time might bring a city grid down for a short time.  Even in the worst storms in the US, the majority of people and businesses have their power back on in hours, with a few taking days.  And those storms are significantly more powerful than any cyberattack can possibly be.  The only way to bring a grid down is through massive physical damage.
This is one of those things the press has gotten a hold of and keeps perpetuating the issue.  Should utilities protect themselves and prepare?  Yes, they should.  Should people understand a little more about an issue before perpetuating the fear mongering?  Yes, they should.  I work in the industry and do a lot of work to understand the security issues.  It has been hijacked by security consultants and the intelligence services to scare people and increase budgets...and its worked.
And before someone screams "what about the Ukraine", it was an isolated part of Kiev only and lasted for less than hour.  And that was a nation-state putting significant resources into doing it.  It actually proves my point.  That malware would have to be modified for every SCADA configuration, and that numbers in the tens of thousands.  It would require someone who has a fairly detailed knowledge of the specific devices and configuration of a transmission grid, distribution grid, or power gen source.  Not impossible, incredibly difficult.  I knocking out significant power for a long time an important goal for a large part of a country, physical attack is probably more cost effective.

"power grid is offline"
Useless fear mongering and drivel.  In the US, there are thousands of power plants and tens of thousand of substations, etc.  The majority of these run on SCADA and control systems isolated from the web and outside connections.  Any cyber attack might be able to take a couple power plants down for a short period or isolate regions from the interconnections, but it is darned close to impossible to bring the entire national grid down.  The worst that can happen is hitting the right node at the right time might bring a city grid down for a short time.  Even in the worst storms in the US, the majority of people and businesses have their power back on in hours, with a few taking days.  And those storms are significantly more powerful than any cyberattack can possibly be.  The only way to bring a grid down is through massive physical damage.
This is one of those things the press has gotten a hold of and keeps perpetuating the issue.  Should utilities protect themselves and prepare?  Yes, they should.  Should people understand a little more about an issue before perpetuating the fear mongering?  Yes, they should.  I work in the industry and do a lot of work to understand the security issues.  It has been hijacked by security consultants and the intelligence services to scare people and increase budgets...and its worked.
And before someone screams "what about the Ukraine", it was an isolated part of Kiev only and lasted for less than hour.  And that was a nation-state putting significant resources into doing it.  It actually proves my point.  That malware would have to be modified for every SCADA configuration, and that numbers in the tens of thousands.  It would require someone who has a fairly detailed knowledge of the specific devices and configuration of a transmission grid, distribution grid, or power gen source.  Not impossible, incredibly difficult.  I knocking out significant power for a long time an important goal for a large part of a country, physical attack is probably more cost effective.

"power grid is offline"
Useless fear mongering and drivel.  In the US, there are thousands of power plants and tens of thousand of substations, etc.  The majority of these run on SCADA and control systems isolated from the web and outside connections.  Any cyber attack might be able to take a couple power plants down for a short period or isolate regions from the interconnections, but it is darned close to impossible to bring the entire national grid down.  The worst that can happen is hitting the right node at the right time might bring a city grid down for a short time.  Even in the worst storms in the US, the majority of people and businesses have their power back on in hours, with a few taking days.  And those storms are significantly more powerful than any cyberattack can possibly be.  The only way to bring a grid down is through massive physical damage.
This is one of those things the press has gotten a hold of and keeps perpetuating the issue.  Should utilities protect themselves and prepare?  Yes, they should.  Should people understand a little more about an issue before perpetuating the fear mongering?  Yes, they should.  I work in the industry and do a lot of work to understand the security issues.  It has been hijacked by security consultants and the intelligence services to scare people and increase budgets...and its worked.
And before someone screams "what about the Ukraine", it was an isolated part of Kiev only and lasted for less than hour.  And that was a nation-state putting significant resources into doing it.  It actually proves my point.  That malware would have to be modified for every SCADA configuration, and that numbers in the tens of thousands.  It would require someone who has a fairly detailed knowledge of the specific devices and configuration of a transmission grid, distribution grid, or power gen source.  Not impossible, incredibly difficult.  I knocking out significant power for a long time an important goal for a large part of a country, physical attack is probably more cost effective.

"power grid is offline"
Useless fear mongering and drivel.  In the US, there are thousands of power plants and tens of thousand of substations, etc.  The majority of these run on SCADA and control systems isolated from the web and outside connections.  Any cyber attack might be able to take a couple power plants down for a short period or isolate regions from the interconnections, but it is darned close to impossible to bring the entire national grid down.  The worst that can happen is hitting the right node at the right time might bring a city grid down for a short time.  Even in the worst storms in the US, the majority of people and businesses have their power back on in hours, with a few taking days.  And those storms are significantly more powerful than any cyberattack can possibly be.  The only way to bring a grid down is through massive physical damage.
This is one of those things the press has gotten a hold of and keeps perpetuating the issue.  Should utilities protect themselves and prepare?  Yes, they should.  Should people understand a little more about an issue before perpetuating the fear mongering?  Yes, they should.  I work in the industry and do a lot of work to understand the security issues.  It has been hijacked by security consultants and the intelligence services to scare people and increase budgets...and its worked.
And before someone screams "what about the Ukraine", it was an isolated part of Kiev only and lasted for less than hour.  And that was a nation-state putting significant resources into doing it.  It actually proves my point.  That malware would have to be modified for every SCADA configuration, and that numbers in the tens of thousands.  It would require someone who has a fairly detailed knowledge of the specific devices and configuration of a transmission grid, distribution grid, or power gen source.  Not impossible, incredibly difficult.  I knocking out significant power for a long time an important goal for a large part of a country, physical attack is probably more cost effective.

"power grid is offline"
Useless fear mongering and drivel.  In the US, there are thousands of power plants and tens of thousand of substations, etc.  The majority of these run on SCADA and control systems isolated from the web and outside connections.  Any cyber attack might be able to take a couple power plants down for a short period or isolate regions from the interconnections, but it is darned close to impossible to bring the entire national grid down.  The worst that can happen is hitting the right node at the right time might bring a city grid down for a short time.  Even in the worst storms in the US, the majority of people and businesses have their power back on in hours, with a few taking days.  And those storms are significantly more powerful than any cyberattack can possibly be.  The only way to bring a grid down is through massive physical damage.
This is one of those things the press has gotten a hold of and keeps perpetuating the issue.  Should utilities protect themselves and prepare?  Yes, they should.  Should people understand a little more about an issue before perpetuating the fear mongering?  Yes, they should.  I work in the industry and do a lot of work to understand the security issues.  It has been hijacked by security consultants and the intelligence services to scare people and increase budgets...and its worked.
And before someone screams "what about the Ukraine", it was an isolated part of Kiev only and lasted for less than hour.  And that was a nation-state putting significant resources into doing it.  It actually proves my point.  That malware would have to be modified for every SCADA configuration, and that numbers in the tens of thousands.  It would require someone who has a fairly detailed knowledge of the specific devices and configuration of a transmission grid, distribution grid, or power gen source.  Not impossible, incredibly difficult.  I knocking out significant power for a long time an important goal for a large part of a country, physical attack is probably more cost effective.

I noted the M1 fast deploying smoke.  What I thought was interesting is the M1's LWS immediately deploys smoke, just like the T-90.  But I also  noted that the LWS automatically points the turret front to the facing of the threat,  At that point, the M1 starts maneuvering its hull about to get its hull aligned with the turret.  It takes 10-15 seconds for the hull to get aligned.
One thing I also noted is that the M1 only has a chance of detecting the ATGM team if its pointed somewhat towards the threat.  The short of it is, I don't think ATGM detection is that unrealistic.  The most unrealistic part is the M1 having an LWS tightly linked into automated threat response.
Also, while newer rocket motors don't leave much of a smoke trail, ignition and launch still leave a very significant smoke and dust signature.

I noted the M1 fast deploying smoke.  What I thought was interesting is the M1's LWS immediately deploys smoke, just like the T-90.  But I also  noted that the LWS automatically points the turret front to the facing of the threat,  At that point, the M1 starts maneuvering its hull about to get its hull aligned with the turret.  It takes 10-15 seconds for the hull to get aligned.
One thing I also noted is that the M1 only has a chance of detecting the ATGM team if its pointed somewhat towards the threat.  The short of it is, I don't think ATGM detection is that unrealistic.  The most unrealistic part is the M1 having an LWS tightly linked into automated threat response.
Also, while newer rocket motors don't leave much of a smoke trail, ignition and launch still leave a very significant smoke and dust signature.

I noted the M1 fast deploying smoke.  What I thought was interesting is the M1's LWS immediately deploys smoke, just like the T-90.  But I also  noted that the LWS automatically points the turret front to the facing of the threat,  At that point, the M1 starts maneuvering its hull about to get its hull aligned with the turret.  It takes 10-15 seconds for the hull to get aligned.
One thing I also noted is that the M1 only has a chance of detecting the ATGM team if its pointed somewhat towards the threat.  The short of it is, I don't think ATGM detection is that unrealistic.  The most unrealistic part is the M1 having an LWS tightly linked into automated threat response.
Also, while newer rocket motors don't leave much of a smoke trail, ignition and launch still leave a very significant smoke and dust signature.

I just ran a bunch of quick tests because I am not seeing what others appear to be seeing.  
An M1A2 without APS against AT-4Cs and AT-14s.  900m distance from each other.  In one test, the M1 is facing away from the ATGM.  In the other, it is facing 90 deg from the ATGM.
AT-14 fires and the LWS on the M1 immediately cause the M1 to rotate towards the threat and within about 15 seconds spots the ATGM.  This happens in both facings.
AT-4 fires multiple times in both scenarios and the M1 never spots the ATGM before being destroyed.
As mentioned above, the LWS is the difference.  In the older SACLOS missiles, the M1 has a very hard time seeing the firing unit, unless the M1 is looking in that direction.  With a laser guided missile, the LWS automatically orients the turret to the threat and allows rapid detection.
I haven't done a full test on the top of line T-90, but I think it will be similar.   I remember in CMSF, the automated LWS on the T-90 allowed the T-90 to spot laser guided ATGM teams.
I only ran the tests 5-6 times each, but its consistent enough to create the supposition.  This at leasts appears to be a reasonably realistic outcome.  Its more realistic than Steel Beasts, which gives AI tanks uncanny spotting abilities with ATGM.
 

I just ran a bunch of quick tests because I am not seeing what others appear to be seeing.  
An M1A2 without APS against AT-4Cs and AT-14s.  900m distance from each other.  In one test, the M1 is facing away from the ATGM.  In the other, it is facing 90 deg from the ATGM.
AT-14 fires and the LWS on the M1 immediately cause the M1 to rotate towards the threat and within about 15 seconds spots the ATGM.  This happens in both facings.
AT-4 fires multiple times in both scenarios and the M1 never spots the ATGM before being destroyed.
As mentioned above, the LWS is the difference.  In the older SACLOS missiles, the M1 has a very hard time seeing the firing unit, unless the M1 is looking in that direction.  With a laser guided missile, the LWS automatically orients the turret to the threat and allows rapid detection.
I haven't done a full test on the top of line T-90, but I think it will be similar.   I remember in CMSF, the automated LWS on the T-90 allowed the T-90 to spot laser guided ATGM teams.
I only ran the tests 5-6 times each, but its consistent enough to create the supposition.  This at leasts appears to be a reasonably realistic outcome.  Its more realistic than Steel Beasts, which gives AI tanks uncanny spotting abilities with ATGM.
 

I just ran a bunch of quick tests because I am not seeing what others appear to be seeing.  
An M1A2 without APS against AT-4Cs and AT-14s.  900m distance from each other.  In one test, the M1 is facing away from the ATGM.  In the other, it is facing 90 deg from the ATGM.
AT-14 fires and the LWS on the M1 immediately cause the M1 to rotate towards the threat and within about 15 seconds spots the ATGM.  This happens in both facings.
AT-4 fires multiple times in both scenarios and the M1 never spots the ATGM before being destroyed.
As mentioned above, the LWS is the difference.  In the older SACLOS missiles, the M1 has a very hard time seeing the firing unit, unless the M1 is looking in that direction.  With a laser guided missile, the LWS automatically orients the turret to the threat and allows rapid detection.
I haven't done a full test on the top of line T-90, but I think it will be similar.   I remember in CMSF, the automated LWS on the T-90 allowed the T-90 to spot laser guided ATGM teams.
I only ran the tests 5-6 times each, but its consistent enough to create the supposition.  This at leasts appears to be a reasonably realistic outcome.  Its more realistic than Steel Beasts, which gives AI tanks uncanny spotting abilities with ATGM.
 

I will say this, its not quantity that counts.  JK posts a lot of stuff, but not all useful.  It seems to come in waves where he is literally 80% of the top 10-15 posts on any given forum.  Some of it game-related, some not.  When you take the approach of quantity over quality, you are going to get dinged by people eventually.  Frankly, I don't think I have looked at a JK-started post in years. 
I have given this advice in the past to JK...when you stumble across something using that great tool called google, wait 24 hours and then revisit it and see if its still something useful.  And I mean useful, versus just interesting to you.

I will say this, its not quantity that counts.  JK posts a lot of stuff, but not all useful.  It seems to come in waves where he is literally 80% of the top 10-15 posts on any given forum.  Some of it game-related, some not.  When you take the approach of quantity over quality, you are going to get dinged by people eventually.  Frankly, I don't think I have looked at a JK-started post in years. 
I have given this advice in the past to JK...when you stumble across something using that great tool called google, wait 24 hours and then revisit it and see if its still something useful.  And I mean useful, versus just interesting to you.

I will say this, its not quantity that counts.  JK posts a lot of stuff, but not all useful.  It seems to come in waves where he is literally 80% of the top 10-15 posts on any given forum.  Some of it game-related, some not.  When you take the approach of quantity over quality, you are going to get dinged by people eventually.  Frankly, I don't think I have looked at a JK-started post in years. 
I have given this advice in the past to JK...when you stumble across something using that great tool called google, wait 24 hours and then revisit it and see if its still something useful.  And I mean useful, versus just interesting to you.

I will say this, its not quantity that counts.  JK posts a lot of stuff, but not all useful.  It seems to come in waves where he is literally 80% of the top 10-15 posts on any given forum.  Some of it game-related, some not.  When you take the approach of quantity over quality, you are going to get dinged by people eventually.  Frankly, I don't think I have looked at a JK-started post in years. 
I have given this advice in the past to JK...when you stumble across something using that great tool called google, wait 24 hours and then revisit it and see if its still something useful.  And I mean useful, versus just interesting to you.

I will say this, its not quantity that counts.  JK posts a lot of stuff, but not all useful.  It seems to come in waves where he is literally 80% of the top 10-15 posts on any given forum.  Some of it game-related, some not.  When you take the approach of quantity over quality, you are going to get dinged by people eventually.  Frankly, I don't think I have looked at a JK-started post in years. 
I have given this advice in the past to JK...when you stumble across something using that great tool called google, wait 24 hours and then revisit it and see if its still something useful.  And I mean useful, versus just interesting to you.

As much as I like the Pacific theater, I would be all over Fulda Gap in the 80's or 90''s.  Its the main reason I stick with Steel Beasts.