panzersaurkrautwerfer

Howdy.
 
Happy Friday.
 
I have converted 85 of the Red Thunder QB Maps not found as duplicates in CM Black Sea over to be usable in CM Black Sea. All are ready to go as you can imagine.
AI plans are not perfect as they are designed for WW2 combat, but they are workable and more content is always a bonus right?
 
All credit for original creation and distribution of these maps goes to BFC.
 
Download Link @Dropbox:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ilbru2acockn615/Red_Thunder_QB_Maps.rar?dl=0
 
Cheers.

Operation Dragoon could be best characterized as a series of small engagements between scattered German forces (of sometimes dubious quality) and fairly overwhelming, often veteran allied units.  While it was likely very important, and frequently quite nasty to the dogface at the front, on a higher operational to strategic level there were not many large battles.
 
In terms of wargaming it, it looks similar to lots of the small platoon-company level fights that make up the post-Operation Cobra breakout scenarios.  Equipment for the Germans will be about same as Normandy, only less of it, and manned often by less capable soldiers.  US forces largely equipped on par with early Normandy equipment (no M4A1 76s, no M4A3s, more M8s less M7s) with a few well blooded US units straight from Italy.  Also of note was fairly sizable French insurgent activity as the writing was on the wall for Germany in France, and a lot of previously fence sitting folks came out of the woodwork to arms.  

I think a new engine wouldn't hurt, and with the Bulge+Bulge and CMBS and CMRT modules it might be a good time to sort of start laying the groundwork.  On the other hand if after CM: Bulge: Gotterdamrung, CMBS: Denmark, and CMRT: Tea Break at the Gates of Warsaw, CMSF redone on the current engine shows up, and there's an early world war two (or dare I hope Korea 1950 OR 2018)  CM, I'm really not feeling like I'll be terribly put out.

The hardware is a big difference from the capability.  The strong example would be Iraqis with M1 tanks, it was functionally irrelevant what equipment they had, as long as the men manning it were poorly trained, equipped, and somesuch.
 
That said:
 
 If there's superiority in the American military, it is in the three following areas:
 
1. Size matters.  While it's getting a lot smaller, the simple size and funding of the American military means a lot of capabilities that are simply too expensive for most other countries are a matter of course for the US (see the combined air fleet of the USAF, USMC, and USN and then compare it to the various other NATO countries, or things like having several carrier battle groups active at once)
 
2. Logistics/support/expeditionary warfare.  When France went into Mali it was riding in USAF planes, and supported by logistics moved through the US log systems.  Further in the operations over Libya while the "shooting" part of the operation was very well spread across the different NATO members, the AWACS/refueling/other support asset was overwhelmingly yankee imperialist.  
 
While it's easy to funnel a lot of this into "bigger is better" is worth noting this ability to not only deploy, but sustain forces, and equip them with potent enabler elements is something that is well into an art/skill all its own, and is finely honed in the regards that since 1890 or so, Americans have been doing most of their fighting well over the horizon on distant shores.  
 
No other force can do that to the degree the American military can, and again it's a skill and training that is well beyond simply having more planes or money to expend.
 
3. The average training tempo, and realism for the US military is quite a bit more elaborate than many peer countries.  The number of rounds fired, and miles maneuvered by my tank company in a year was roughly equal to how much some battalion sized armor elements in western European military forces do in a similar time scale.  Additionally every "combat" unit (to include National Guard units) goes to NTC on a regular basis to get its face peeled off by the OPFOR in training that is what could best be called "hyper realistic" (in that the enemy is significantly more capable than he should be) situations.  It's hard, tough training, but what separates it from simply tossing troops in Siberia or marching several hundred KM through North Africa, is that the hardness has a focus, and there's a lot of post-action analysis.  It's not just enough to successfully assault the fake town in the desert, but each step will be broken down, and looked at honestly (having sat through some other country's AARs, there's a lot of face-saving and hand waving when things go wrong.  This is really not the case in an American type AAR in which even your random privates can speak up about what they saw/suggestions to do it better).
 
You get a lot of anecdotal stuff, Legionaries roundhouse kicking Taliban, British bayonet charges, 100% objective success rate for Excercise Donbass Freedom or whatever, but there's a wide margin between what the American military is capable of, and what the rest of NATO and most potential threat nations can do*
 
 
*Which is not to say it is unbeatable, but what gets tiring is the "well we have 300 Leo 2s and they're better than Abrams!" or "here's this link discussing how fast the French moved through Mali when it took the US ten years to sort of pacify Iraq!" There's certainly ways to beat the US in conventional warfare even...it's just not really in trying to meet it at a 1:1 ratio in terrain that doesn't highly favor you if you get my drift
 
Of course, as a post script I'm not sure how much longer we'll be able to maintain a lot of those advantages.  One of the great problems with being "the best" is that it engenders a perception that it is simply a state that will be maintained without further investment, when in reality we're seeing the miltiary budget get hacked and slashed to maintain other spending, while at the same time not seriously re-examining if a lot of what we invested in during "good" times is worth keeping (like the always lovely JSF).  

Re: Cost
 
Think it's part of the game is trying to figure out how to make your stuff work against something that's bigger and angrier than you.  I don't play much Russian stuff but seems like I couldn't afford to stack Shermans until infinity against Tigers and the like in CMBN.  If you really want to stack it more in one direction there's always the force adjustment option rolling into a QB.  
 
Re: Angry French people.
 
I used to think like you, but after:
 
1. Dealing with someone claiming France didn't really lose in 1940, but it was all political (then going onto a very delusional scenario in which France holds out in Southern France supported by the colonies/how massively effective the French Air Force and Navy was)
2. The a single Leclerc is capable of destroying 45 T-55 type tanks in 5 minutes.  Also there should be lots of Leclercs in a game set in 1991.
3. The American infantry in the game being discussed is bad, but that's okay because that's realistic and believing otherwise is simply a result of watching too many movies from hollywood (note, this was the community liaison guy from the company that made the game).  
 
I sort of lost my desire to be rational.  If I'm going to offend folks who are that wrong, I do not feel any sense of remorse.  If it'd been an American pig-dog claiming similar stuff I'd have made fun of them just as hard.  Just happened I mocked France on a frogeating surrender team owned forum.  

The hardware is a big difference from the capability.  The strong example would be Iraqis with M1 tanks, it was functionally irrelevant what equipment they had, as long as the men manning it were poorly trained, equipped, and somesuch.
 
That said:
 
 If there's superiority in the American military, it is in the three following areas:
 
1. Size matters.  While it's getting a lot smaller, the simple size and funding of the American military means a lot of capabilities that are simply too expensive for most other countries are a matter of course for the US (see the combined air fleet of the USAF, USMC, and USN and then compare it to the various other NATO countries, or things like having several carrier battle groups active at once)
 
2. Logistics/support/expeditionary warfare.  When France went into Mali it was riding in USAF planes, and supported by logistics moved through the US log systems.  Further in the operations over Libya while the "shooting" part of the operation was very well spread across the different NATO members, the AWACS/refueling/other support asset was overwhelmingly yankee imperialist.  
 
While it's easy to funnel a lot of this into "bigger is better" is worth noting this ability to not only deploy, but sustain forces, and equip them with potent enabler elements is something that is well into an art/skill all its own, and is finely honed in the regards that since 1890 or so, Americans have been doing most of their fighting well over the horizon on distant shores.  
 
No other force can do that to the degree the American military can, and again it's a skill and training that is well beyond simply having more planes or money to expend.
 
3. The average training tempo, and realism for the US military is quite a bit more elaborate than many peer countries.  The number of rounds fired, and miles maneuvered by my tank company in a year was roughly equal to how much some battalion sized armor elements in western European military forces do in a similar time scale.  Additionally every "combat" unit (to include National Guard units) goes to NTC on a regular basis to get its face peeled off by the OPFOR in training that is what could best be called "hyper realistic" (in that the enemy is significantly more capable than he should be) situations.  It's hard, tough training, but what separates it from simply tossing troops in Siberia or marching several hundred KM through North Africa, is that the hardness has a focus, and there's a lot of post-action analysis.  It's not just enough to successfully assault the fake town in the desert, but each step will be broken down, and looked at honestly (having sat through some other country's AARs, there's a lot of face-saving and hand waving when things go wrong.  This is really not the case in an American type AAR in which even your random privates can speak up about what they saw/suggestions to do it better).
 
You get a lot of anecdotal stuff, Legionaries roundhouse kicking Taliban, British bayonet charges, 100% objective success rate for Excercise Donbass Freedom or whatever, but there's a wide margin between what the American military is capable of, and what the rest of NATO and most potential threat nations can do*
 
 
*Which is not to say it is unbeatable, but what gets tiring is the "well we have 300 Leo 2s and they're better than Abrams!" or "here's this link discussing how fast the French moved through Mali when it took the US ten years to sort of pacify Iraq!" There's certainly ways to beat the US in conventional warfare even...it's just not really in trying to meet it at a 1:1 ratio in terrain that doesn't highly favor you if you get my drift
 
Of course, as a post script I'm not sure how much longer we'll be able to maintain a lot of those advantages.  One of the great problems with being "the best" is that it engenders a perception that it is simply a state that will be maintained without further investment, when in reality we're seeing the miltiary budget get hacked and slashed to maintain other spending, while at the same time not seriously re-examining if a lot of what we invested in during "good" times is worth keeping (like the always lovely JSF).  

The hardware is a big difference from the capability.  The strong example would be Iraqis with M1 tanks, it was functionally irrelevant what equipment they had, as long as the men manning it were poorly trained, equipped, and somesuch.
 
That said:
 
 If there's superiority in the American military, it is in the three following areas:
 
1. Size matters.  While it's getting a lot smaller, the simple size and funding of the American military means a lot of capabilities that are simply too expensive for most other countries are a matter of course for the US (see the combined air fleet of the USAF, USMC, and USN and then compare it to the various other NATO countries, or things like having several carrier battle groups active at once)
 
2. Logistics/support/expeditionary warfare.  When France went into Mali it was riding in USAF planes, and supported by logistics moved through the US log systems.  Further in the operations over Libya while the "shooting" part of the operation was very well spread across the different NATO members, the AWACS/refueling/other support asset was overwhelmingly yankee imperialist.  
 
While it's easy to funnel a lot of this into "bigger is better" is worth noting this ability to not only deploy, but sustain forces, and equip them with potent enabler elements is something that is well into an art/skill all its own, and is finely honed in the regards that since 1890 or so, Americans have been doing most of their fighting well over the horizon on distant shores.  
 
No other force can do that to the degree the American military can, and again it's a skill and training that is well beyond simply having more planes or money to expend.
 
3. The average training tempo, and realism for the US military is quite a bit more elaborate than many peer countries.  The number of rounds fired, and miles maneuvered by my tank company in a year was roughly equal to how much some battalion sized armor elements in western European military forces do in a similar time scale.  Additionally every "combat" unit (to include National Guard units) goes to NTC on a regular basis to get its face peeled off by the OPFOR in training that is what could best be called "hyper realistic" (in that the enemy is significantly more capable than he should be) situations.  It's hard, tough training, but what separates it from simply tossing troops in Siberia or marching several hundred KM through North Africa, is that the hardness has a focus, and there's a lot of post-action analysis.  It's not just enough to successfully assault the fake town in the desert, but each step will be broken down, and looked at honestly (having sat through some other country's AARs, there's a lot of face-saving and hand waving when things go wrong.  This is really not the case in an American type AAR in which even your random privates can speak up about what they saw/suggestions to do it better).
 
You get a lot of anecdotal stuff, Legionaries roundhouse kicking Taliban, British bayonet charges, 100% objective success rate for Excercise Donbass Freedom or whatever, but there's a wide margin between what the American military is capable of, and what the rest of NATO and most potential threat nations can do*
 
 
*Which is not to say it is unbeatable, but what gets tiring is the "well we have 300 Leo 2s and they're better than Abrams!" or "here's this link discussing how fast the French moved through Mali when it took the US ten years to sort of pacify Iraq!" There's certainly ways to beat the US in conventional warfare even...it's just not really in trying to meet it at a 1:1 ratio in terrain that doesn't highly favor you if you get my drift
 
Of course, as a post script I'm not sure how much longer we'll be able to maintain a lot of those advantages.  One of the great problems with being "the best" is that it engenders a perception that it is simply a state that will be maintained without further investment, when in reality we're seeing the miltiary budget get hacked and slashed to maintain other spending, while at the same time not seriously re-examining if a lot of what we invested in during "good" times is worth keeping (like the always lovely JSF).  

The hardware is a big difference from the capability.  The strong example would be Iraqis with M1 tanks, it was functionally irrelevant what equipment they had, as long as the men manning it were poorly trained, equipped, and somesuch.
 
That said:
 
 If there's superiority in the American military, it is in the three following areas:
 
1. Size matters.  While it's getting a lot smaller, the simple size and funding of the American military means a lot of capabilities that are simply too expensive for most other countries are a matter of course for the US (see the combined air fleet of the USAF, USMC, and USN and then compare it to the various other NATO countries, or things like having several carrier battle groups active at once)
 
2. Logistics/support/expeditionary warfare.  When France went into Mali it was riding in USAF planes, and supported by logistics moved through the US log systems.  Further in the operations over Libya while the "shooting" part of the operation was very well spread across the different NATO members, the AWACS/refueling/other support asset was overwhelmingly yankee imperialist.  
 
While it's easy to funnel a lot of this into "bigger is better" is worth noting this ability to not only deploy, but sustain forces, and equip them with potent enabler elements is something that is well into an art/skill all its own, and is finely honed in the regards that since 1890 or so, Americans have been doing most of their fighting well over the horizon on distant shores.  
 
No other force can do that to the degree the American military can, and again it's a skill and training that is well beyond simply having more planes or money to expend.
 
3. The average training tempo, and realism for the US military is quite a bit more elaborate than many peer countries.  The number of rounds fired, and miles maneuvered by my tank company in a year was roughly equal to how much some battalion sized armor elements in western European military forces do in a similar time scale.  Additionally every "combat" unit (to include National Guard units) goes to NTC on a regular basis to get its face peeled off by the OPFOR in training that is what could best be called "hyper realistic" (in that the enemy is significantly more capable than he should be) situations.  It's hard, tough training, but what separates it from simply tossing troops in Siberia or marching several hundred KM through North Africa, is that the hardness has a focus, and there's a lot of post-action analysis.  It's not just enough to successfully assault the fake town in the desert, but each step will be broken down, and looked at honestly (having sat through some other country's AARs, there's a lot of face-saving and hand waving when things go wrong.  This is really not the case in an American type AAR in which even your random privates can speak up about what they saw/suggestions to do it better).
 
You get a lot of anecdotal stuff, Legionaries roundhouse kicking Taliban, British bayonet charges, 100% objective success rate for Excercise Donbass Freedom or whatever, but there's a wide margin between what the American military is capable of, and what the rest of NATO and most potential threat nations can do*
 
 
*Which is not to say it is unbeatable, but what gets tiring is the "well we have 300 Leo 2s and they're better than Abrams!" or "here's this link discussing how fast the French moved through Mali when it took the US ten years to sort of pacify Iraq!" There's certainly ways to beat the US in conventional warfare even...it's just not really in trying to meet it at a 1:1 ratio in terrain that doesn't highly favor you if you get my drift
 
Of course, as a post script I'm not sure how much longer we'll be able to maintain a lot of those advantages.  One of the great problems with being "the best" is that it engenders a perception that it is simply a state that will be maintained without further investment, when in reality we're seeing the miltiary budget get hacked and slashed to maintain other spending, while at the same time not seriously re-examining if a lot of what we invested in during "good" times is worth keeping (like the always lovely JSF).  

Protip:

When re-infiltrating a forum you've been banned from, do try to make it less obvious that its you.  Or wait a few weeks and then return a bit less belligerent.  
 
Unless it's a French run forum, and you were booted after pointing out once the French army finds a way to surrender to Penguins and Kangaroos* they'll have lost a war on every continent. Then you're pretty much hosed.   
 
 
*Of course if you count Austrialia as part of Oceania instead of as a stand alone, its down to just penguins.  

russian sources deny the fact of russian troops occupying ukrainian soil so of course - if you for some funny reason believe them

Because they make a certain kind of games that I rather enjoy, and generally I have had a pleasant experience in dealing with their customer service. While it is not essential I "defend" them, it is important to have the other side of the discussion in this case.
 
Also it is part of my long lasting plan to become a highly paid consultant for BF being paid the money they're not spending on trying to code a "follow roads" command.  

Because they make a certain kind of games that I rather enjoy, and generally I have had a pleasant experience in dealing with their customer service. While it is not essential I "defend" them, it is important to have the other side of the discussion in this case.
 
Also it is part of my long lasting plan to become a highly paid consultant for BF being paid the money they're not spending on trying to code a "follow roads" command.  

I think a new engine wouldn't hurt, and with the Bulge+Bulge and CMBS and CMRT modules it might be a good time to sort of start laying the groundwork.  On the other hand if after CM: Bulge: Gotterdamrung, CMBS: Denmark, and CMRT: Tea Break at the Gates of Warsaw, CMSF redone on the current engine shows up, and there's an early world war two (or dare I hope Korea 1950 OR 2018)  CM, I'm really not feeling like I'll be terribly put out.

Maybe with the maturity of the automotive engine in question, it would be best to return to the horsedrawn carriage.
 
Sarcasm aside, perhaps there could be some system of terrain based formation changes, like if the terrain offers some small amount of cover and is fairly open, infantry would assume a wider spacing, while in urban or complex enviroments it would bunch up more.  
 
I'm loath to support squad formations as a button simply because it's getting a bit too into micro, I'd rather just have a slightly flawed, but mostly functional system that let me set my dudes on their way without too much baby sitting.  
 
Further maybe it'd be tied to movement speed/behavior.  Examples:
 
Move would be a column, with spacing maintained based on terrain (slightly abstracted, like it if entered a series of urban action squares it'd tighten up to maintain cohesion, while if it entered a light wood it'd spread out)
Tactical move (new command), walking pace, same as above with formation broadly flexing to orient on assumed or known infantry positions*
Quick: same as tactical move only at a fatiguing, but faster pace
Fast: Run.  No spacing or formation.  Basically reserved for getting troops through an area as fast as possible
Hunt: .75 tactical move speed, cohesion loose, formations on line/wedge oriented on line of travel**
Assault: less spread out than hunt, bounding by sections.  Sections basically run for short distances while the other fires.  Lays down suppressive fire automatically at known or suspected enemy (so both enemy icons, and ? icons) regardless of chance to hit.  Should exhaust troops and expend ammunition at a very high rate***
 
Just some thoughts.  Likely more complex than needed, but would be cool to give a command and have a certain kind of output vs giving a command, then a spacing, and a formation instruction too.  
 
*The difference between move and tactical move being that "move" would exist chiefly to get dismounted infantry from place to place without tiring them out, while tactical move would be used for long distance movements to contact, or where possibility of enemy contact cannot be ruled out.  
**Hunt would basically be used for moving infantry into combat against likely or known enemy positions.  They move in a deliberate, controlled manner, and have a narrower focus for spotting the enemy, but are much more likely to spot something in front of it.
***In contrast to hunt, assault is basically moving to finish an enemy that has been fixed in place.  You're accepting some vulnerability by keeping troops close in order to get the most number of soldiers and firepower on the objective.  Also as anyone who's done an attack in a STX type lane, you're going to be pretty spent, and 40-50% of your ammunition lighter after assaulting through the objective.  Again you're basically sacrificing ammo and soldier fatigue to improve your chances of taking the ground at the end of the assault movement.

I think it'd be a firepower upgrade for the BM-30 would be to simply strap rockets to BMP3s and let fly.  

Re: Topic
 
I started up the scenerio, haven't gotten too far in yet (there's a reason I tend to play quick battles, it's usually what I've got the 30-40 minutes for).  More results to follow, but just eyeing the terrain it's not the sort of stuff I'd want to fight an Abrams on.
 
Re: Tanking
 
I still technically am an Armor officer, although I've moved to the National Guard (which is its own odd Americanism).  I was only really a "tank*" officer for my initial officer training and the last two years of my active service.  As a new Lieutenant I trained on the M1A1HC, and the absolute baseline M3A2 (it had the armor upgrades to make it a A2, but did not have the LRF or any of the other Operation Desert Storm period upgrades), then spent a few years in an Cavalry squadron mostly doing Iraq focused counter-insurgency training/operations.  I did wind up being the Executive Officer for the one Cav Troop in our Squadron that was still training on Bradleys for one of our deployments though, so while I didn't get to play with them, I'm fairly well acquainted with the feeding and care of them.    Then I went off to some advanced training, and then spent some time in Korea working chiefly with M1A2 SEP V2s, including a stint as a company commander which frankly will likely be the "best" years of my military service.    I'm still in an "armored" unit in the National Guard but I now work at the Brigade HQ level (which shouldn't be confused with my being especially important, I'm simply now senior enough to be the small fish in a big pond).
 
*the various recon units in the US Army are part of the Armor branch.  While the enlisted and NCO personnel are their own distinct MOS and are generally not interchangeable without being retrained, the officer level leadership bounces between the armor and cavalry organizations.

The imager is the important part, and the component that'll impact visual quality, acquisition range, and resolution while moving.  It'll be interesting to see what the Armata has if it ever comes to be a common tank, but given the state of Russian electronics there's reason to doubt it compares to the current generation elsewhere. 
 
But yeah.  I was on what is the current generation of M1A2 SEP v2s.  The main difference between them and the in-game ones is the ERA is a theater-equipped kit vs standard issue (basically the one part of TUSK that the M1A2 SEP didn't pick up), the data-link for rounds isn't a installed system, and the ammunition family is still the M829A3/MPAT/Cannister/ORD family vs the M829A4/AMP mix.
 
  Re: Nerdwing
 
 
Dunno.  I'm off active duty now and in the National Guard, so even if I wasn't a staff toolbag now I'd be on an M1A1SA.  If I had to conjecture it'd be better integration of the ERA racks, some sort of upgraded boat-hull armor upgrade and possibly might be someone figured out a new layer for the armor array or something (every now and then they'll crack the turrets/hulls and insert "something" that I have no idea what it's made of.   

When in COIN, worry about collateral damage.
 
When at war, worry about ending the mission with artillery rounds unfired.  

When in COIN, worry about collateral damage.
 
When at war, worry about ending the mission with artillery rounds unfired.  

When in COIN, worry about collateral damage.
 
When at war, worry about ending the mission with artillery rounds unfired.  

When in COIN, worry about collateral damage.
 
When at war, worry about ending the mission with artillery rounds unfired.  

It's not just timing. It can also be accomplished by making a variety of measures. Easiest to describe is simply keeping aviation higher than the flight path of indirect fires, or offsetting the aviation approach and exfil from target area to not enter artillery occupied air space.

It's something that requires some work but aviation and artillery is not mutually exclusive.

It's like calling someone who inprocessed successfully at basic training "trained and combat ready!"
 
Early stuff has been completed, testing is underway. That testing is not yet complete and a final production vehicles does not yet exist is pretty solidly into the realm of "untested" and "unproven"

It's like calling someone who inprocessed successfully at basic training "trained and combat ready!"
 
Early stuff has been completed, testing is underway. That testing is not yet complete and a final production vehicles does not yet exist is pretty solidly into the realm of "untested" and "unproven"

It's like calling someone who inprocessed successfully at basic training "trained and combat ready!"
 
Early stuff has been completed, testing is underway. That testing is not yet complete and a final production vehicles does not yet exist is pretty solidly into the realm of "untested" and "unproven"